Good morning, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the regular meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, April 23rd, 2026.

I'm Supervisor Matt Dorsey, Chair of this committee.

I'm joined today by fellow committee members.

Vice Chair Danny Sauter and Supervisor Alan Wong.

As always, we are grateful for our clerk, uh, Ms.

Moni Creighton, whom we thank for staffing and keeping us on track today.

Um as well, we appreciate the entire team at SFGov TV for facilitating and broadcasting today's meeting and especially to our producer uh Suce Enos.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk.

Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

First, you may email them to myself, the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee clerk at M-O-N-I-Q-U-E dot C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at SFGOV dot or G.

Or you may send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you submit public comment in writing, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included it as part of the official file in which you are commenting.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of May 5th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Uh would you please call the first item?

Yes.

Uh item number one is a hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 90 on sale general mu General Music Venue liquor license to the Mellow LLC to do business is the Mellow SF, located at 1401 H Street, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and for those who are attending for higher profile things today.

I want to make sure just so you know this is something that we can get out of the way pretty quickly.

Um I want to welcome uh San Francisco Police Officer Brandon Erickson from the uh department's uh liaison unit to the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, or ABC.

Uh thank you, Officer Erickson.

Um floor is yours.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for having me.

You have before you a PCN report for the Mellow LLC, operating as the Mellow SF.

They have applied for a type 90 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate in on sale general music venue at 1401 H Street.

There are zero letters of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 664, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in Census Tract 166.01, which is considered a high concentration area.

Park station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation approval with the following conditions.

Conditions one, except as provided in condition two below, no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee.

Condition two, any noise caused by entertainment or amplified sound that is subject to the provisions of an active entertainment permit issued by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission shall be authorized in accordance with the limits established by that entertainment permit, including any limitation on hours during which entertainment or amplified sound is permitted.

A violation of the entertainment or amplified sound noise conditions of the of the entertainment permit as determined by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission shall be deemed to be a violation of this condition.

Any noise that is subject to or is beyond the scope of the entertainment permit shall be subject to condition one above.

Entertainment permit means any of the following: a just to add music permit, a limited live performance permit, a place of entertainment permit, a fixed place amplified sound permit, or any similar such permit issued by the San Francisco Entertainment Commission.

Condition three.

Petitioners shall actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons on any property adjacent to the licensed premise as depicted on ABC for ABC Forum 257.

Last condition number four, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premise over which they have control as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Great.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

It's my understanding that this applicant has uh the support of uh District 5 Supervisor Mockmode.

Um I'm glad to support moving this forward with a positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, do we know if the applicant is we have an applicant present today?

But there's no requirement that you do.

I don't think that we have a representative for this item.

Okay.

Do we?

Are you here for the Mellel?

Okay.

You can come up.

Did you want to speak?

Okay.

Well, thank you so much for the approval and the recommendations.

Uh it will help us have a place of community in the neighborhood and uh provide opportunities to the local artist.

I think the time nighty is meant to do that and make it sustainable, so we appreciate the review and the process.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

We appreciate uh you bringing your business and entertainment to the neighborhood.

Um clerk, may we open this item up to public comment?

Yes, members of the public who would like to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is closed.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey.

Um out of my district, and I don't go out of my district much, but I did happen to be in the neighborhood a few weeks ago.

I enjoyed a really nice uh coffee at the Mellow.

Um I appreciate how you're doing all of the different art and you've got the plants, and I think it's just a creative model to have all those activities under one roof, and I think this will help.

So I look forward to supporting this, and thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sauter.

And um seeing no further questions or comments, I'd like to uh move that the clerk prepare um a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 90 limited on-sale music venue license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call in that motion?

Yes, and on the motion directing the clerk to prepare a resolution and forward that resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, I, Vice Chair Saughter.

Hi.

Vice Chair Sauter, I, Chair Dorsey.

I.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Uh Madam Clerk, can you please call the next item?

Yes, item number two into an ordinance submitting the administrative code to state that it is city policy to expand the availability of site-based permanent supportive housing that prohibits on-sale illicit drug use among residents to meet and demand of people experiencing homelessness who prefer such a residential option.

Bar the city from funding new site-based PSH for people experiencing homelessness that prohibits evictions on the basis of drug use alone, except where operation of the housing as drug-free PSH would conflict with standards and polls by law or by a condition of other funding, or the Board of Supervisors has waived the funding prohibit prohibition prohibition based on specific findings and require the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing to survey residents on site-based PSH to access their interest in living in uh either drug-tolerant PSH or drug-free PSH and report on the survey findings and PHSH's strategies to meet PSH residents' demands.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um colleagues, before we open this up for discussion and then public comment, I do want to take a moment to uh serve as my own presenter on this.

Uh this was legislation that actually started nearly two years ago with in partnership with Board President Raphael Mandelman.

Um it has seen many iterations through more clinical approaches to recovery housing.

We are in a different place now where we are actually doing something that I think is much simpler and more legally straightforward.

Um I will mention that the the policy realm of recovery housing is itself changing and over the last two years.

We've seen that at the state level.

Uh Assembly member Matt Haney is working on this to amend uh housing first policies at the state level to free up money for drug-free and recovery supportive options.

In San Francisco today, virtually all permanent supportive housing for people exiting homelessness operates under a model that expressly allows the use of illicit drugs on site with no meaningful consequences tied to tenancy.

In state-funded supportive housing, uh that framework is required under California's housing first law.

Uh but here in San Francisco, we have historically applied those same drug-tolerant rules, even in city-funded supportive housing where the state law doesn't require it.

Um this legislative endeavors, uh, this legislation endeavors to change that and to finally offer a drug-free option, if that is the option that permanent supportive housing housing residents themselves want.

Under state law, drug use cannot be grounds for eviction in state-funded supportive housing.

Providers are required to follow a harm reduction approach that treats drug use as a part of tenants' lives and limits engagement to non-judgmental communication about individuals' drug use.

That approach may work for some individuals, but it clearly does not work for everyone.

That's why a lot of work is being done, as I mentioned by Assemblymember Haney, and I think even at the federal level, to create more flexibility and enable some funding for recovery supportive housing at a time when we desperately need it.

We also need drug-free options, and I will explain why this is different from recovery housing and actually more straightforward and simpler.

But over the last two years that we have worked on this, we've heard from supportive housing residents with increasing urgency, not solely those in recovery, but also families with children, seniors, and many others, including those who are elevated risk for substance use disorders.

That many of these drug-tolerant residential environments can be destabilizing and even dangerous.

We also have to be honest about the broader impacts.

A significant share of our overdose deaths in our city occur in permanent supportive housing.

In San Francisco today, fully 26% of all overdose fatalities occur in the permanent supportive housing San Francisco taxpayers are funding.

Many of these sites also generate a high volume of calls for police and emergency medical responses.

Some of these sites, in fact, average as many as two 911 calls per day for police service alone.

That tells us something important that the current one-size-fits-all model is not meeting the needs of all the people it is intending to serve.

So the question before us is not whether supportive housing is important, it absolutely is.

The question is whether we can do better in how we structure that to better meet the needs of those it serves.

This legislation intends to do that, and it would do it in three ways.

First, it would require that new city-funded permanent supportive housing operate as illicit drug-free housing, with lease standards consistent with all other residential rental housing in San Francisco.

There are roughly 240,000 standard residential leases citywide, and all of them protect tenants' rights to live in residential communities free of illicit drug use.

Only in permanent supportive housing are 100% of residents forced to live in drug tolerant communities, whether that's what the resident wants or not, where no one can be evicted even for rampant illicit drug use.

Second, it would direct the city to actually ask residents to conduct a survey of what residents in site-based permanent supportive housing want, whether they would choose to live in a drug-tolerant environment or a drug-free one.

And I want to be clear on this point.

But I think it's time to end the arrogance of assuming, as I think policymakers mistakenly have, that everyone in permanent supportive housing is an active drug user is or is okay being in community communities that are drug tolerant.

Permanent supportive housing residents deserve a tenancy standard that is substantially permanent supportive housing residents deserve a tenancy standard that is the same as other residential tenants.

It's not fair that their standard of tenancy is different, is a different standard when it comes to drug tolerance.

I think it's unfair, and that is something that needs to change, but we can change it in a way that is also fair and that it makes sure that we have options that everybody wants.

And the third thing this legislation would do is establish as city policy that we should work to meet that demand rather than assuming one model works for everyone.

At the end of the day, this is about choice.

No one exiting homelessness should be forced into a living environment that undermines their stability, their recovery, or their safety.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that over the course of this policymaking endeavor, which as I said goes back two years, we ultimately moved away from legislating recovery supportive or therapeutic housing models.

That just for reference is the model that Assemblymember Matt Haney is working on at the state level.

Those are supportive housing options that are strictly intended for those struggling with substance use disorders.

Those are recovery focused.

I think we can come back in months and years ahead to revisit that.

But I think the consensus that I got from the people that I have been reaching out to, policymakers, nonprofit housing developers, people who still aren't maybe in support of this, but we did hear from people that simplifying this would make it easier.

So this is a drug-free option after working collaboratively.

And I also want to mention that I worked especially collaboratively with Mayor Lurie's office, and I want to express particular gratitude to his human services policy chief Canal Modi in deciding to simplify this legic legislation.

So this isn't recovery housing.

It's not sober housing.

It's illicit drug-free housing, which is legally indistinguishable from standard residential lease provisions enforceable in all residential tenancies in San Francisco and throughout California.

That means that legal intoxicants like alcohol and marijuana are allowed, but the use of illicit drugs is prohibited.

I know some opponents are trying to uh recomplicate this with requests to make this legislation more a more complex clinical model.

I'm certainly open to revisiting that policy in innovation in months and years to come, but that's not the legislation before us.

We have been intentional to avoid that with version two of this law or proposed law.

It is simpler, it is a simpler incremental step that will finally give supportive housing residents a drug-free choice they deserve.

Because I've been at the table for all of these meetings, as I said, I'm my own presenter.

I certainly welcome colleagues' questions if you have any.

Um I know that uh for many of us who have worked in the drug policy realm in recent years, uh, we will recognize um Dr.

Keith Humphreys' name uh from Stanford University's School of Medicine.

Uh he served as President Obama's drug policy advisor.

He has published extensively on this topic.

He is acknowledged as one of the nation's most knowledgeable academics in the feed the field.

Um yesterday, Dr.

Humphreys endorsed this legislation, and I would just like to read from Dr.

Keith Humphreys, as someone who has studied addiction for over 35 years, served as the senior drug policy advisor in President Obama's White House, and currently volunteers in the tenderline.

I am writing to in support of this proposal to expand the availability of drug-free housing in San Francisco and to survey residents of publicly supported housing on their housing preferences.

Housing first programs are important, particularly for people who suffer from serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.

But a review of the evidence by the National Academies of Science, and there's a link, this will be on the Board of Supervisors' website, concluded that they do not reduce substance use, which poses a challenge for people who are facing addiction.

In contrast, drug-free housing options particularly benefit people struggling with their use of methamphetamine, fentanyl, and other drugs.

For example, a DePaul University study of individuals randomly assigned after addiction treatment, either to Oxford an Oxford House, which is a substance-free setting with a pro-recovery culture, or other forms of aftercare, found that after the ensuing two years, Oxford House residents had doubled the rate of abstaining from substance use and were 50 percent more likely to have a job.

Under current California law, it is unfortunately not legal to use state housing dollars to create drug-free housing options that would yield benefits like this.

The only option San Francisco therefore has is what this proposal offers, namely using local funds to support such therapeutic living environments.

I believe that doing so will greatly aid people who are seeking recovery from addiction, and I therefore respectfully urge you to support this proposal, and he signs it sincerely, Keith Humphreys.

Um with that, um, I'm happy to open it up for discussion.

I welcome input or questions from colleagues, or we can just go to public comment and then revisit that afterwards.

So I think that is uh my presentation.

Seeing no one on the roster with questions or comments, Matt Madam Clerk, may we open this item up for public comment.

Yes.

Members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have one minute.

Okay.

Okay.

And but so I just want to remind attentees to keep signs below or at head level uh when showing support for someone's comments.

We ask people to refrain refrain from clapping and be polite.

You can always use hand gestures, thumbs up or jazz hands.

Um, because of the crowded agenda, we are limited, limiting public comment to one minute today, but we welcome written public comments to the extent uh one minute is not enough time.

Um first speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Michael Fitcher.

I go by Mirac.

I'm vice president of San Francisco Young Democrats and serve on the Board of Governors for the American Addiction Recovery Association.

I'm here today as a member of the recovery community recently celebrating three years clean and sober.

I'm a former homeless active drug addict, and I am someone who has also benefited from methods of harm reduction.

The thing that doesn't make sense is when people get off the street and they want to work to be clean and sober and get out of the grip of addiction, that the city government forcibly damns them to live in a drug environment that perpetuates the cycle.

There must be equity in housing.

There must be equity in the management of addiction and recovery.

This is only providing that.

This is not advocating against people who use.

This is advocating for people who want to get a better chance at a new life.

I support this legislation and I'm grateful for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Bill Maher.

Supervisors, we should call our present policy.

Um probably the codependent policy more than anything.

We do nothing to encourage people to change their lives and succeed.

We have the second highest OD rate among major cities.

More deaths occur in public supportive housing than on the street.

We do nothing to insist on minimal behavior standards.

Permanent supportive housing is an abject failure.

Don't we care about people who are trying to get clean?

Why can't they live in sober housing?

You don't cure drunks in a bar or in a shooting gallery.

I urge you to support this legislation and remind you.

Over 9,000 units of drug housing and 42 units of non-drug housing.

Something's wrong with that equation.

Something's wrong with those priorities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I would just it is customary in the board chambers when a former member of the Board of Supervisors is here.

I will well we welcome you, former Supervisor Bill Maher.

Thanks.

Next speaker.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Justice Doomla from the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and the Treatment on Demand Coalition and the Safer Inside Coalition.

I'm speaking today not in opposition of this legislation, but in improvement of it.

The idea that recovery housing is needed is not contested here.

The idea that recovery housing is important is not contested here.

What I'm asking for is stronger eviction protections and less pitting of permanent supportive housing against drug-free housing.

This legislation is wonderful in its principle, but in practice, it really harms our entire system of care here.

And as you heard formerly, people are also upset at permanent supportive housing because of this legislation.

There's no reason to pit these things against each other, and it's unconscionable to do that in a time where more housing is needed across the board, regardless of the type.

And so legislation like this unfortunately undermines the idea that housing is health care and that people on the streets don't have the resources needed.

More resources, not less.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Supervisors.

My name is Larry Ackerman.

I'm a retired UCSF medical scientist.

And I have some personal experience that uh is related to this legislation.

And uh particularly with regard to evictions, which seems uh it needs some modification or amendment in this legislation.

My husband, unfortunately, became addicted to methamphetamine.

And after five years of work with many people, he entered a rehab program.

It was not permanent supportive housing, but it was a program.

And one night he relapsed.

And the next morning, he was evicted to the street.

Well, he was pretty traumatized with with that.

Eviction.

And within a year, he died from an overdose.

Thank you for your comments.

Eviction can equate death.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

My name is Lucasilla, and I'm with the Coalition on Homelessness.

Um I want to thank you for this legislation.

For one, I you know, I do agree and I do respect everyone who's here who is naming what we agree with, which is the fact that we do need housing options that are drug-free.

Um we hear from folks on the street, we hear from folks everywhere that they would want that.

Um I I just I think the amendment that we're really looking for is extending the commitment to avoid um eviction without a replacement housing.

We need something more.

We need something more concrete.

Um, you know, I I believe the medical society society will uh underline this point, but this you know, homelessness um exacerbates substance use.

And we I want it, we want to see a firm commit not just a firm commitment, but uh a true, genuine guarantee that there will be replacement housing for anyone that is evicted.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, thank you.

Uh my name is Adam Francis.

I'm the senior director of advocacy and policy for the San Francisco Marin Medical Society.

We represent uh 3,500 physicians in the community.

Um all types of practice and locations, including importantly, uh the physicians that see this population, particularly ones that fall into relapse.

Um the uh we are fully completely on board with the need for this type of housing and believe it should be prioritized, but not uh there should not be put up obstacles um to funding other types of housing.

So that's an amendment we would like to see as is not exclusivity.

That's the problem that we've identified also at the state level and support uh assembly member Haney and in his work there because we do need more housing and there needs to be uh funding, but it prioritization ahead of exclusivity.

Um then again, as mentioned, we're um again supportive of the model, but need to ensure that people who relapse are going into higher services, not less services, ensuring very simply, not complicated that they have access and availability of housing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, public safety and the abread services committee.

Supervisor Long Dorsey and Souter.

Uh Griffin Lee here speaking on behalf of Connected SF staff and membership.

Uh I remember that the day I wasn't here two years ago, but last year this time around when Supervi uh Assemblymember Haney was advocating for AB 255.

And um I just want to say thank you to Supervisor Dorsey.

Persistence does pay off, and I'm here to support this.

We're here to support this legislation and the recovery community.

Uh in multitude of uh ways, this is common sense legislation, and we really appreciate uh Supervisor Dorsey for taking the lead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Apple.

I'm with the treatment on demand collition, as well as um a member of leadership for HIV Advocacy Network.

Um I want to speak from lived experience here because three years ago I was uh five months pregnant.

I was homeless in an emergency shelter and um very, very sick withdrawing from opioids, and what helped me was not being required to be obstinate.

It was getting indoors, it was getting stable.

It was being able to, you know, recover recover just by laying my head somewhere and surviving, you know, not having to focus on survival.

And um that kept me alive long enough to be ready for recovery.

I do support recovery housing, I think it's needed, but I don't think it should take the place of other housing options.

Um housing first was created not as a drug ordinance but as a response to the fact that systems that were trying to put precondition people to um in order to be housed weren't working.

We weren't helping people.

So thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

Uh my name is Ray Orfiano.

Um I'm a proud activist, sky watcher, and a resident leader.

I do a lot in the community, don't have time to talk about all of that.

But um just a few years ago.

Um, I'm here to share my story and emphasize the life-saving importance of the housing first approach.

Just a few years ago, my life was on a downward spiral.

Uh I was homeless struggling with a severe drinking problem, and felt like I was reaching the end of my rope.

I was at a time of darkness and uncertainty, but in 2021, I was given housing.

Um the housing first approach saved me.

It didn't require me to be drug-free or sober.

Um here, I could have um sorry I'm trying to um if it wasn't for two social workers finding me um in my house in my apartment that they have given me half dead from drinking so much, I wouldn't have been put into um the hospital.

I fought for my life for two years.

They kept my housing and then brought me back.

Um, here today if if it wasn't for that.

So I'm not schizophren schizophrenic, so next speaker.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Anthony Prater.

And I've been living in San Francisco my whole life.

I've seen the good, bad, and ugly.

And uh since you have housing first, I've seen the uh community clean, not more uh homely captimates, and I believe that it's done a very good job of keeping our streets clean and safe.

If it goes back to program first, it's gonna be go back to what it was.

It'll be counterproductive.

So thank you.

Bye.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Thank you, committee board.

Um my name is Mikhail Brent Taylor.

I'm a I'm a district five resident, and I'm writing to share concern about filing number two, one zero zero three.

Um the owners uh expense drug-free permanent supportive housing.

Oh, prior to getting permanent housing, a lot of people were evicted, are suspended from their housing, which led to relapse in terms of their drug use.

Also, people who are released from custody should be able to access housing first, permanent housing and making their own choices to live crime free, drug-free, and homeless shows we have uh community poor community health care.

Thank you.

Next speaker, I'm I'm Anthony Tieton.

I'm a participant at Harbor Lights, and I just wanted to say that this opportunity to have a drug-free environment is really something that people like me who put 100%, 150% effort into their recovery is really something that we could use and appreciate.

So I'm gonna keep it short and simple.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Laura Curren.

I am a resident of San Francisco, and I have been a direct service provider for people that have been uh within the child welfare system and homeless response system for over 10 years.

Um I agree with many folks here um that there is absolutely a need for substance-free permanent supportive housing.

We hear that demand on a daily basis.

Um I also am here to ask you what this looks like in the context of a city that has lost uh three shelters recently with a fourth on the docket for closure within the year.

Um and against a backdrop with uh Mr.

Modi um discussing uh closure of SRO-based PSH.

Um I agree, Mr.

Dorsey, with your comment.

26% of ODP OD fatalities in PSH is a travesty and quite frankly, embarrassing.

And I think that does tell us something important.

I think what it tells us is to look at the supports that are in place in PSH and reevaluate those.

There are a lot more steps that can be taken on a programmatic level to address this issue than uh evictions.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, uh, my name is Meg.

I'm a resident of San Francisco and a Bay Area native.

Um I've been providing direct services to uh folks experiencing homelessness for um over six years, and I am also in recovery.

I have also benefited from recovering in private market housing, as ha as have you, um Dorsey.

This legislation claims to expand housing options for residents of permanent supportive housing, but really it just empowers uh permanent supportive housing to evict residents solely for drug use.

And right now, um when we already have people being evicted for um nonpayment of rent who are utilizing pay services, this is just going to like expand the already um homeless crisis.

Um I also agree that the permanent supportive housing often fails to meet residents' needs, and um it it lacks the the actual support that they need.

So I would like to see a a deep commitment to on-site clinical appropriate support.

Um and furthermore, um I just want to say that while there may be some need for PSH that's uh drug free, often people who are committed to sobriety don't actually uh need PSH as a clinical intervention, and we really need to expand the um private market subsidized housing, which is a much more appropriate uh clinical approach for most of our people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Sheedog Bukta with Mission Housing, proud co-developers of the Marvel in the mission with phase one consisting of 136 units of permanent supportive housing at 16th and CAP.

You know we all want people to survive, stabilize and have a real shot at recovery.

Supportive housing works when it is adequately funded, resourced with deeply supportive services on site, not when it is based on compliance or shaped by punishment.

Housing is the foundation that makes stability, health, and recovery possible in the first place.

What we're hearing today reframes a problem as individual failure rather than a system that has been underfunded and stretched for years.

We can expand recovery options without shrinking access for everyone else we can all agree on that.

And we all know that this policy will likely lead to people being back on the street back into instability and further from recovery if it goes through as rent.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker Jordan Vasileski Day I'm a PSH tenant from District 5 and I have been traumatized by people getting wheeled out in body bags.

I also have addiction in my family so I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Nobody is denying we need more recovery housing options.

If I fucking oppose ending all new low barrier PSH and I support treatment on demand proposal.

They are pragmatists you are the extremist I spent over a decade pushing for real fucking solutions to PSH issues, especially evictions.

But George is RFK Junior loving recovery grifter fuckers are parachuting into our life like it's red fucking dawn and they want to worsen evictions.

We PSH tenants want real solutions at center us.

Otherwise get the fuck out of our lives you have tech and finance bros doing desire drugs in their condos and mansions but we're the problem we need to be evicted.

None of thy empty gods shall stand ever stand above me I yield my time fuck you next speaker please and just a reminder we we do have a board rule regarding audible show support no clapping please you can you can start hi my name is Ray Sanderson and um I am a tenant in supportive housing and just want to say supportive housing is save my life and um I'm really grateful to Gish, just SF I've been with them for 10 more plus years.

And uh these I spent my time advocating for tenant rights.

And um I just hope that you guys use some compassion when um making your decision.

All right thank you thank you.

Next speaker good afternoon my name's Amber Richmond and I have lived experience in supportive housing and housing instability I want to clarify this proposal is not about automatically evicting people for struggling.

When someone begins using again there are opportunities for intervention support and chances to get back on track.

This is not about punishing relapse and it does not exclude people on medication assisted treatment what this bill creates is one more voluntary housing option.

Right now too often the choices are homelessness with chaos or housing with chaos many people need something different stability safety and a place that supports recovery I became stable in section eight housing that was drug free and non-drug tolerant that environment helped me succeed this legislation creates that next kind of step option for people already in supportive housing who have stabilized and are ready to move forward they deserve options too please support this legislation thank you for your comments next speaker hi my name is Len Dewey and I'm from um the outbreak I'm I've never been on drunk but I support the people that uh we got lala homeless and thank you to deed I vote you got a play because I don't have no funding for the play but I'm supporting that at my citizen I don't feel like why do I have to pet uh I feel that that again my right but I support for wrong three environment thank you next speaker good morning supervisors my name is Jesse Rollins and I'm here representing the Tinderline neighborhood development corporation uh we are a member of the Supportive Housing Providers Network.

Uh today we're asking for y'all to support amendments to this legislation uh that would prevent evictions based solely on substance use recognizing that it's certain behaviors that can co-occur with drug use that are the problem and would allow tenants who need to move out of recovery housing to remain housed while an alternative housing placement is identified and offered secondly we urge removing the ban on new supportive housing funding and to instead implement a recovery housing pilot program to demonstrate the importance of that housing we agree with the spirit of this ordinance to provide diverse housing options.

We agree with the spirit of this ordinance to provide diverse housing options.

However, we believe recovery housing should be additive.

We shouldn't eliminate any other type of housing.

Also, supportive housing is not drug tolerant.

PSH under housing first operates with leases that prohibit onside illicit drug use and allow evictions based on illicit drug use when accompanied by lease violations.

Thank you for the evidence.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

This is Ariel Villauteb.

And I'm a grateful recovery addict, and I support, and people like me need places to go that have made efforts, they've been doing everything we can to stay clean and be good members of society just as fast.

This last six months I've seen three people die and two people relapse in, you know, where they just get SROs.

So we need something where there's no drug at all.

Not even outside.

Thank you so much.

Support you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, Marie Habia, lifelong San Franciscan and candidate for Congress.

I support Matt Dorsey's effort to expand drug-free supportive housing.

The issue is not complicated.

Men and women who are trying to reclaim their lives from addiction deserve more than a bed.

They deserve an environment that supports sobriety, stability, treatment, and recovery.

Housing should be a foundation for build rebuilding a life, not a setting in which recovery is constantly placed in jeopardy.

Drug-free housing should be one of the tools the city provides to those who want a sober and safer place to live.

I support this policy because it restores common sense to public policy and puts recovery back where it belongs at the center of our response.

I urge you to support Supervisor Dorsey's measure.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Ellis.

I live in a supportive SRO.

And firstly, I'd like to point out that Captain Sullivan is doing a great job at clearing the streets of people selling drugs right outside these buildings.

Now I spent the better power two years in dual diagnosis programs.

I don't use substances.

But plenty of people who did.

And they need accountability on both sides.

They need accountability for the providers.

They need more support services.

They need to both when they're in the SRO, when they're not.

And I just need to they need to put more resources to keep people housed to give them the support they need, not take it away.

That's what they need.

And the support of housing provides network and the resident advisory board that I'm on are doing their very best, and I'll be happy to provide further info after the meeting.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Cody Keene, and I'm here on behalf of the Supportive Housing Provider Network.

I wanted to begin by acknowledging our shared goal of expanding housing options that truly meet the diverse needs of San Franciscans, including those seeking stability and recovery.

We strongly support the expansion of recovery-oriented housing and appreciate the intent behind this ordinance.

At the same time, we have real concerns about how this is being implemented, especially given the current federal funding climate.

Recent changes to the continuum of care funding thresholds could mean a significant loss, tens of millions of dollars for PSH in San Francisco.

On top of that, we've seen abrupt federal shifts in behavioral health funding.

This level of uncertainty makes it critical that we prefer preserve local flexibility and avoid unintentionally weaken the housing models that are already working.

That's why we're urging a few key amendments, allowing continued local investment and low barrier housing rather than uh imposing a full ban and moving forward with recovery housing through pilots.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Morning, supervisors.

I'm Lauren Hall.

I'm a San Francisco resident and the co-founder of Dish delivering innovation and supportive housing.

We provide supportive housing to over 800 San Franciscans that are struggling with uh complex health issues.

I won't echo I have a minute, so I'm going to try to cut to what we haven't heard.

Uh I support the amendments that we have put forth to this committee to consider for this legislation.

There's further comments in a letter from us that you I hope you will review as a minute is not a lot of time, but I think the piece around the nimbleness and the urgency for us to have all the tools in our toolkit.

We have a new director coming to HSH and the idea of sort of hamstringing our efforts to be able to really meet the needs of people on the street is of great concern.

We are largely general fund funded, and we were created because we needed to have more flexible models, not dictated by state and federal priorities, where we could beat people where they are at.

I feel like harm reduction has been turned into an attack on the work that we're we're we're meeting people we're at.

We are not drug tolerant, we are people tolerant.

We want to see the people that need the housing the most be able to get inside and get the services that they need.

Thank you.

And are deeply concerned about this, the limitations that this will offer.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is June Bug, and I'm born and raised here in San Francisco, and I work with TNDC Community Development.

I'm part of the TAE Fellowship at Glide.

I'm a parent leader with parent voices.

I work also with homefulness with Poor Magazine.

I'm here today because I actually oppose this proposal.

Housing first, not housing second.

We have a homeless crisis.

To say to somebody you can get housing if you do this is putting a condition on something that is a human right.

It is not okay.

Community helping somebody, but not denying housing based on the fact that the use substances.

So what are we saying?

It's okay for rich people, homeowners can access housing if they do drugs, but poor people, that's classism.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning to the committee.

My name is Laquan Woods.

I'm a direct service provider here in San Francisco to those experiencing homelessness.

Um I would ask if you guys can also give me the respect of looking at me as I speak to you, the same respect that I've given to you all.

Um what I would like to ask is that when we make these kinds of policies, that we please consider evidence-based, academic-based decisions and that we not run on anecdote and emotions and fear that we do not use our citizens who are complaining about the situations that they're living in and use that as an antidote to further um punish uh their peers, those who are experiencing homelessness and drug addiction.

Um I would like to echo the person earlier that said inclusivity and not exclusivity.

Um we definitely agree that there needs to be options for sober living environments, but not at the cost of evicting uh those who are the most vulnerable and who are struggling and putting them back into a vulnerable situation.

Um I would also like to ask what the city plans on doing when inevitably we have more people in the streets because of these sorts of policies, because right now it seems that the city is focusing on an increase in criminalization of those experience of homelessness.

So if we are going to put more people back on the street, then we need to make sure that we are sensitive to that, and that we are not further criminalizing them with the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Erica Sandberg.

Um today I'm actually not uh providing comment for myself, but for Gina McDonald, who was unable to make it here today.

She's one of the co-founders of Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Death.

And she requested that somebody please read some of the names of the people who have died of overdose in permanent supportive housing in San Francisco.

So just to honor them with their names, there has been over 960 people who have perished in in permanent supportive housing.

So just a few of the names.

David R.

Cameron H, Exira, Donald, Alexander, Marie, Coco, Robert, Robert, Robert, Lucian, Carmel, thank you for the environment.

And many, many more.

So on their behalf.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm my name is Mark Silva.

I am a citizen of San Francisco.

I work to connect people to permanent supportive housing.

Uh permanent supportive housing was created as a clinical intervention to chronic homelessness.

It was designed to provide support and stability with a clinician on site.

However, these models uh you know save lives and reduce overdoses and help people stabilize at their own pace.

Unfortunately, this administration, both uh federal and local, has gutted funds that make these environments supportive, uh, which has led to chaos.

You have also reduced cash assistance, resulting in less money being passed on to site operators to ensure sufficient staffing, support and maintenance.

This crisis is entirely uh the making of these policymakers by constantly chipping away at proven interventions such as cash assistance, permanent supportive housing and support services.

We're left with schooler conditions and increased overdoses and stalled progress on stabilization.

Uh if we want to support those in recovery, yes, we do need more sober living environments, but we also need comprehensive support services.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Liz Marowski.

Um thank you, supervisors.

Actually, not thank you.

I'm kind of disappointed you came up with this legislation from one addict to the other that knows that relapse is part of recovery.

It's quite evidence this is a systemic issue.

You're gonna close and take away peer support from eight substance abuse offices during the Department of Public Health cuts.

So supportive housing drug free is already in the lease.

So this is in violation of Prop T.

Um treatment on demand.

Let people choose sober living or if they need a harm reduction approach.

We know that those steps, those changes are how we get to recovery.

And treatment on demand is housing, residential housing.

And that's our law.

And it also meets the contingency plans of 24-2025.

So with amendments, try a pilot program.

Get some evidence-based data, and then we can move forward collectively as a community.

Thank you for your call.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

I've been with health care for the homeless.

I got my pin here long back to when Tom Waddell was still alive.

Number one.

I it's probably efficient if the if you already got your ducks in a row to only give this these people one minute.

You know, that's efficient.

Number two, there was like 200 people at that press conference that were in support of this measure.

But where's the public comment?

Number three, it's short.

I'll tell you what's gonna happen.

All of your staffers, all of your MPHs, everybody that's educated or experienced, they're eventually gonna turn this around.

Gavin, or even in short order.

Gavin Newsom tried to get rid of uh the continuum of care, but how did that turn out?

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Uh good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Paul Wermer.

Uh I've been following the homeless and drug treatment as an interested resident of San Francisco.

Uh I've read this legislation and it's a vicar's egg.

Parts of it are excellent.

Unfortunately, the legislation is not.

Uh I think the comments on the amendments, especially the comments on the gentleman from TNDC make a lot of sense and should be considered.

I am distraught that I keep seeing the same sort of language coming up about homelessness and public safety and drug addiction and public safety, and yet I do not see comprehensive analysis of how the systems are working today, where they are not working.

Instead, I see legislation, I see increased funding for the police.

I do not see problem solving.

I see responses to people who are really concerned that the streets might not be as pretty as they like them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any additional public comment for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

You have one more?

Hi.

And you seem to me right here is speaking and defending the poor people, the homeless people, the people who is living in this uh type of housing, they're in recovery.

And housing first is really important for every single human being.

Because when you provide the stability of someone or a sung human being, so we can change.

It's possible in this society.

Do you see me right here?

Do you see how many people I helping to kill from the streets and be recovered?

It's possible everything, sir.

Please comment.

Please give you housing to everyone, and don't start in accusing because they're using drugs or because they fell down.

It's not okay.

Thank you so much.

Do we have any additional public comment for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes the public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment is now closed.

I could there's a well, there's a couple.

One and I just hand it off.

I know that actually both colleagues wanted to speak.

Sure.

Well, why don't I go to you first?

Okay.

Vice Chair Sauter.

I will start.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey.

And thank you to all who made public comment.

Maybe a comment and then a quick question on the legislation.

You know, I I think that I I will be supportive of this.

I think there's probably things in here that need to be uh sharpened up, and there's probably things in here that we'll revisit in the future, but but you there is no uh disagreement on my part that what it we are currently doing is absolutely not working, and we cannot continue the way we have been going.

Um I do have a question and and and kind of just uh I think also some clarification around what is within this legislation, what is different uh what is retroactive and what is forward looking, right?

In terms of uh and I think that's really important for people to understand.

So uh if you're able to clarify that after our comments, that would be helpful.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks.

And actually, if it's okay, um Supervisor Wong.

So the all of this um, the designation of uh local funding, local dollars for permanent supportive housing that would require it to be um drug-free is forward-looking.

So this would not apply to the operations of any existing um site-based permanent supportive housing.

It's also under it's important to understand that this legislation only applies to site-based, not scatter site.

Um site-based is when it's a facility that is 100 percent permanent supportive housing.

Um that was important because it often is uh scatter site permanent supportive housing is often necessary to get for afford for to have projects that are affordable housing pencil out.

Um it's limited in that, and the idea was not to change anything, but just to make sure that if dollars local dollars can be spent for drug-free options, they shall be spent for drug-free options.

Is that okay?

Uh Supervisor Wong.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

I support this legislation because it recognized something very basic.

If someone is trying to get sober and stabilize their life, the city should be willing to offer housing that supports that goal.

This measure is forward-looking.

It does not automatically convert existing permanent supportive housing sites, and it does not push current residents out.

What it does is set a policy direction for future city-funded site-based PSH expansion.

If we're growing this system, we should also be growing recovery-oriented drug-free options for people who want them.

It also includes important safeguards.

A single relapse cannot automatically trigger eviction, and the city is required to use best efforts to find alternative housing or shelter for someone at risk of losing placement.

It also requires HSH to survey current residents and report back on the actual demand for both drug-free and drug-tolerant models.

For me, this is about giving people a real chance at stability.

We have heard clearly that some residents want a housing environment that better support sobriety and long-term recovery.

Expanding the option is not punishment and it is not abandonment.

It is more honest and more complete form of support.

That is why I'm proud to support this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Um there were a couple of um themes that I did want to address.

Uh one is in policy making.

Sometimes it is trying to strike a balance where the law should be less prescriptive and let the uh experts and the departments actually develop do rulemaking and develop regulations for how it's going to work.

Um or more prescriptive, and I will say, most of my career in this building, I was I worked with in the city attorney's office or worked with lawyers.

I have often seen more problems created by overly prescriptive legislation uh that didn't that sort of assumed expertise among us as elected policymakers when we're not really necessarily the experts in this field.

That's why there is a section, it's not unique to this, but there's a section of rules and regulations that has broad guardrails, um, but it's section 12K.6.

Um it will require the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing to, in consultation with the Department of Public Health, to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the provisions.

The guardrails are that um it will prohibit the use of illicit drugs on site.

Um this would be the same, again, this would be the same residential lease provision that would be standard for residential tenancies.

Um it would provide that a single relapse or instance of illicit drug use not be treated as automatic cause for eviction or termination from a program, and that participants would be offered relapse support.

The rules and regulations should address that.

And I will say, having really gone deep on some of the this policy realm over the last couple of years, there are best practices that the Obama administration's HUD, the Biden administration, SAMHSA, and the National Association of Recovery Residences or NAR, they have best practices for how to handle a relapse or return to use.

Many of those things are changing even now, and that's true at the state level as well.

When I talked to Mayor Lurie's team, we agreed that it will be important for us to have a collaborative approach to the rulemaking process.

And in fact, we actually built into this a requirement that before a single implementation is made, HSH in consultation with DPH will have to report to the Board of Supervisors.

So we will have another bite at the apple.

But I so I don't want people to think that because you're not seeing prescriptive protections for evictions, that they're not there.

In all flavors of housing first.

Returns to homelessness should be rare, and we should do everything we can to avoid that.

So we will have a policy making role as residents and people who are activists in this, and as the Board of Supervisors, we will see it before there is a single implementation of drug-free housing.

There was a theme about the concerns about the exclusivity of funding, and I wanted to address that because that is the exclusivity of funding right now for exclusively drug tolerant models of housing first is the problem that we're trying to solve for.

State law does not allow any state funding for recovery oriented or drug-free models.

I think we we were optimistic that that was going to happen when Governor Newsom vetoed it.

I think there's some optimism that we may be in a better place, you know, later this year or next year we will see.

But it's important when in addressing why this is not an exclusive designation of dollars.

This is making sure that we are designating local dollars that may be used for recovery housing, that they shall be, or I'm sorry, that shit may be used for drug-free options, that they shall be used for drug-free options.

But it doesn't say no to a single state dollar for traditional California-style housing first.

And by the way, I say California style because even even the policy realm of housing first, there is a difference of opinion.

The Obama administration's 2015 guidance from HUD was very clear that housing first should include recovery-oriented options.

California adopted it a different way.

It was more restrictive.

Hopefully that will change.

The other thing I wanted just to address about the so-called theme of exclusivity is to also understand that this only applies to new acquisitions.

Again, this isn't this isn't retroactive.

And there is also a process built in that if there is a if there is a rationale for us, we need to have a drug tolerant with local funding.

We don't have to amend the legislation.

We could approve that by resolution.

And that's a just an escape clause that gives us the flexibility precisely so that we avoid exclusivity.

So there's more to come in that.

And the final thing that I would say just about exclusivity is to re be aware that in the site-based permanent supportive housing facilities that we're talking about, it's a little over, I believe it's about 9,000 residences that are drug tolerant within the meaning of how California wrote housing first, whether it's required by state law or not.

There's only 42 units of drug-free housing, uh, and that's at a facility on Folsom Street in my district because neighbors and my office negotiated that, and it seems to be working well, but we've got a long way to go to catch up, and it may not have it probably won't happen during my time here.

It's probably going to be many years before we get to the level of drug-free versus drug tolerant that the survey will show people want.

But the idea here is to make sure that we are centering what permanent supportive housing residents themselves want.

And then the final thing I I really do appreciate that somebody did mention that we should have better support in harm reduction, like harm reduction housing.

And this is where you know, sometimes I I think, having worked a lot on drug policy, I support harm reduction.

I support supervised consumption sites.

I'm an advocate for four pillar strategies that European cities have.

The thing that European cities have that we don't is a cooperative federal government.

And I was exasperated by I would expect opposition from and you know an uncooperative partner from the Trump administration, but I was very disappointed in the Biden administration at times when we could have moved the ball on some harm reduction approaches.

It is my hope that with permanent supportive housing, if we're going to have a harm reduction drug tolerant model, we should have harm reduction services there beyond what we have.

Things like peer observed use, common areas where people can observe each other and protect one another and keep one another alive and healthy and access to oxygen and harm reduction supplies.

I think there's probably, I won't ask our city attorney, but I would expect that there's probably legal issues with that right and especially right now in the in the uh the Trump administration.

But I do think that this is a step in the right direction.

I think it's going to take us time to get where we want to go.

Um I think it avoids I I think if you really read the legislation, it avoids the problems with exclusivity and gives us the flexibility to do this right.

Um by the way, we may I am hopeful that even within the with even the framework of this, the Lurie administration may also want to have more therapeutic sort of recovery oriented options, certainly drug free would allow that.

So I don't see anybody else on the roster with questions or comments.

Um I would like to make a motion.

I'd like to say something.

Well we've we've discontinued public comments close.

And we we it was I will say that um there's a lot of letters coming in, and we certainly are everybody's reading them.

There's a lot to to unpack, so feel free to to write a letter for the the board, and this will be um something that I think we'll all be looking at.

So at this time, I would like to make a motion to send this ordinance uh to the full board with our positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call on that motion.

Yes, and on the motion to forward this ordinance, the full board with positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, I Fleischer Sauter.

Fleischer Sauder, I, Chair Dorsey?

I.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And Madam Clerk, may we please call the next item, item three.

Yes, um, item number three is a resolution supporting and recognizing the importance of the junior reserve officers training corpse program and encouraging the San Francisco United Fied School District to continue to provide high school students the opportunity to participate and ensure the program is preserved and as currently constituted.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This resolution was introduced by Supervisor Alan Wong, and I am uh proud to be a co-sponsor of this item.

I really appreciate your leadership on it, and I would like to invite Supervisor Wong to offer his remarks and introduce our presenters.

Supervisor Wong, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Chair Dorsey and colleagues or colleague.

Uh I introduced this resolution to recognize the importance of JRTC in San Francisco public schools and to express the board's support for keeping that opportunity available for the students and families who choose it.

JRTC has been part of SFUSD for generations, and today it continues to serve students across six San Francisco high schools.

For many young people, this program is about much more than an elective.

It is a place where they build confidence, learn discipline, develop leadership skills, and experience teamwork, service, and belonging.

Students, parents, and instructors have spoken powerfully about the impact this program has had on young people's lives.

Many describe it as a second family, a place where students feel supported, challenged, and encouraged to grow.

The program also gives students practical skills that extend well beyond the classroom, including communication, responsibility, civic understanding, physical training, and community service.

This is a voluntary program, and it is clearly one that many San Francisco families value.

We can see that not only in the stories we have heard from students, parents, and instructors, but also in the program's continued presence across six campuses.

I will say I was somewhat surprised that a resolution like this, one recognizing a long-standing program that has served San Francisco students for generations was referred to committee rather than moving in a more routine way.

But since it is before us today, I do think it is important that we say clearly and on the record that this board recognizes the value of JROTC and supports its continued availability in our public schools.

And more broadly, I do not think we need to wait until a program is in immediate jeopardy before affirming its value.

Part of our role is also to recognize what is working, to reflect the priorities of the communities that we represent, and to make clear what opportunities we want to see remain available to students.

That is especially true here, where San Francisco voters already spoke clearly on this issue through proposition V.

Given that history and given the financial pressures the district continues to face, I think it is entirely appropriate to make that support clear here.

At its core, this resolution is about student opportunity.

It is about recognizing a program that has served the city for generations and continues to make a meaningful difference in the lives of young people today.

I respectfully ask for your support.

With that, I'd like to invite several speakers who can share firsthand what JRTC means in our schools and communities, from the educators who have dedicated years to guiding students to the students and alumni whose lives have been directly shaped by this program.

They are here to speak to the leadership development, mentorship, discipline, and sense of belonging JRTC provides, as well as the lasting impact it has had on students, both during high school and long after graduation.

First, we will hear from Chris Chisholm, senior Army instructor at Galileo High School, followed by Celeste Mercia, a senior and four-year GRTC cadet at Lowell High School, Isabella Pham, a former JRTC cadet and alumna, and retired Lieutenant Colonel Doug Bollard, SFUSD GROTC Director of Army Instruction.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, and Supervisor Wong.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Chris Chisholm, and I serve as the senior Army instructor for JROTC at Galileo High School.

I've been teaching there, I've been teaching ROTC for eight years, and for the last seven years, it has been my true honor to serve the students at Galileo High School and the San Francisco.

First, I want to thank Supervisor Alan Wong for introducing this important resolution and for recognizing the value that JROTC brings to students, families, and schools across San Francisco.

Your leadership in supporting this program means a great deal to the students and educators who see the impact every day.

Over these years, I've had the privilege of working closely with hundreds of students and their families, and I can say without hesitation that JROTC is one of the most impactful programs we offer in our public schools.

JROTC is often misunderstood as a military program, but in reality, it's a leadership and character development program.

It teaches students responsibility, discipline, teamwork, communication, and service.

These are life skills that benefit every student, regardless of what career path they choose after graduation.

Many of our students come to high school looking for direction, confidence, and a sense of belonging.

JROTC provides that.

It gives students structure and consistency.

It creates a place where they feel supported, challenged, and encouraged to lead.

I've seen students improve their attendance, their academic performance, and their overall confidence because they found purpose through the program.

The impact also extends beyond the classroom.

Parents often tell me how much GROTC has helped their children, help them mature.

They see their sons and daughters becoming more responsible, more respectful, and more focused on their future.

That kind of growth strengthens, strengthens not only the student, but the entire family.

At Galileo, our cadets participate in service projects, school leadership, and community events.

They learn that leadership is not about rank, but about responsibility and service to others.

Whether they go to college, public service, the workforce, or the military, the lessons they learn through JRTC stay with them for life.

Programs like JROTC are especially important because they provide opportunities for students who may not always feel connected to traditional school experiences.

It gives them mentorship, accountability, and a community that expects them to succeed.

That is why maintaining and supporting JROTC matters.

This is not just about preserving one program.

It is about making sure our students continue to have access to mentorship, leadership, development, and opportunities that help them build a better future.

I'm going to depart briefly from my prepared remarks to say this.

The mission of ROTC is to motivate young people to become better citizens.

And what we teach there is that students have responsibilities to their community, not just benefits and rights afforded to them by the community.

Our program is built on a foundation of values.

Chief amongst those values is respect.

Not respect for authority, but respect for basic human dignity.

But I can tell you without reservation, even though I'm enormously proud of my service to this country.

Thank you for your time.

Chair Dorsey and members of the committee, my name is Celeste Mercia, and I'm a senior at Lowell High School, and I have been a part of JRTC for all four years.

I can honestly say this program has changed my life and helped shape the person I am today.

First, I want to thank Supervisor Alan Wong for his leadership in introducing this resolution and for recognizing how important JRTC is for students like me.

It means a lot to know that our voices are being heard and that our experiences in this program are being taken seriously.

One of the biggest things JRTC has taught me is self-motivation.

It helped me learn how to set goals for myself and take responsibility for my own future.

I have support from my family, teachers, and instructors, but at the end of the day, I realized that I'm the one who has to make choices that will shape my future.

Before joining JROTC, I had more of an external mindset where I felt like things just happened to me and my future depended on external circumstances.

Through this program, I've learned to shift my mindset.

I learned that I have control over my actions, my effort, and the direction of my life.

That lesson alone has changed the way I approached school, leadership, and my future.

JRTC has also helped me find confidence in my voice.

Through leadership opportunities and experiences like JCLC, I was pushed outside my comfort zone in ways that helped me grow.

I still remember doing the pyramid obstacle course at JCLC and realizing I was much more capable of doing things than I thought I was.

Being in leadership positions has taught me how to lead others, communicate, communicate clearly, and trust my own judgment.

It taught me that leadership is not just about being in charge, but about some being someone that others can rely on and someone who leads by example.

Those are skills I carry now with me and I will carry for the rest of my life.

The program also gave me a stronger sense of direction, and it opened my eyes to a career in the military and gave me a butter a better understanding of structure, discipline, and commitment that will come with joining the Air Force.

It helped me see leadership in a new way and gave me confidence in exploring that future for myself.

Most importantly, it helped me understand what kind of leader I want to be.

I see myself as someone who values relationships, trust, and connection with others.

I'm a blue, which is a relator personality type, and JRTC has helped me with those qualities and showed me that those qualities can be strengths in my leadership.

Leadership does not look the same for everyone, and this program helped me find my own style of how to lead others.

JRTC is so much more than just a class.

It gave me confidence, purpose, discipline, and a clear vision for my future.

It helped me become more independent and believe in myself in ways I never expected.

I hope this program continues to be available for students like me because it truly makes a difference.

And I know I'm not the only student whose life has been changed by it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Celeste.

Next we have Isabella Pham.

Former JRTC Cadet and Alumna.

Good morning, Chair Dorsey and members of the committee.

My name is Isabella Pham, and I'm a former JRTC student and proud alumna.

I want to begin by thanking Super Advisor Alan Wong for introducing this important resolution and for recognizing how much JRTC means for students and families across San Francisco, and to the code sponsors for their support of our students and their commitment to preserving opportunities like JRTC for future generations.

I'm here today because JRTC had a major impact on my life, and I want to share what this program meant to me personally.

When I first joined RO, I was looking for a place where I could feel connected, challenged, and supported.

Like many students, high school can feel overwhelming.

You're trying to figure out who you are, where you belong, and what kind of future you want for yourself.

JRTC gave me that sense of direction.

It taught me discipline, responsibility, and confidence.

It pushed me outside of my comfort zone and helped me develop leadership skills that I still carry with me today.

I learned how to communicate better, work as part of a team, and take responsibility not only for myself, but for helping others succeed as well.

One of the most valuable parts of JRTC was the mentorship.

Our instructors believed in us and held us to a high standard.

They challenged us to do better, but they also supported us when we needed guidance.

That kind of mentorship makes a lasting difference for students.

JRTC also created a strong sense of community.

It was a place where students from different backgrounds came together and supported one another.

It gave us opportunities to lead, to serve, and to represent our schools with pride.

For many students, including myself, JRTC becomes more than just a class.

It becomes a foundation for personal growth and and a family.

It helps students build confidence in themselves and prepares them for life after graduation, whether that path is college, public service work, or military service.

The lessons I learned through JRTC did not end when I graduated.

They continue to shape how I approach challenges, leadership, and service today.

That is why I strongly support keeping JRTC available for future students.

Every student deserve deserves access to programs that help them grow, lead, and believe in themselves.

I respectfully ask for your support for this of this resolution and for your continued support of JRTC programs in San Francisco schools.

Thank you.

Okay.

And next we have retired Lieutenant Colonel Doug Bullard, SFUSC GRTC Director of Army Instruction.

It's a tough act to follow there.

Thank you very much.

Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, Supervisor Wong.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I've been doing that for about uh four years as a full-time job and for many years as a teacher as well.

I've been in the district 29, almost 29 years total, on top of 23 years of active duty.

Please, please don't add that up.

But I want to thank uh Supervisor Wong again for your support of the program and for introducing this resolution and recognizing how valuable this program is.

I want to give you some important background of where JROTC stands today and why its continued support matters.

It's been part of the fabric of San Francisco for a hundred and ten years.

So the program started in 1916 nationally, and two, I think a couple of our schools, certainly Lowell started that same year.

So it's been around 110 years.

Many generations have of leaders have come through the program and gone on to do amazing, amazing things.

After passage of Prop V in 2008, uh high turnout election, by the way, when President Obama was first elected.

Um SFUSD significantly limited the funding for the program.

So for more than a decade, three of our schools only had one instructor, even though the requirement by the Army is for two.

And I'll try to help you understand that uh a bit more.

In addition to teaching four levels of curriculum, we also have about 13 or 14 co-curricular activities, including several drill teams, robotics, drones, archery, cybersecurity, academic bowl, leadership bowl, and so on.

So there's all these activities.

The Army is paying to send many of our students all over the country to national competitions, fully funded by the Army in robotics, drones, archery.

We have three teams heading to the archery championships next month in uh at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

So the Army regulation is that we have to have two instructors for each program.

And without that minimum staffing, we're out of compliance.

And we were that way.

The Army turned their head for many years, but uh they're not doing that anymore.

They're requiring the the two instructors.

Um after the pandemic in 2022, three of our schools, Galileo, Balboa, and Mission were understaffed, had been for over 10 years.

Uh there were not a lot of students enrolled, and the school district and the Army agreed to close those programs.

At that point, I went to the Army and pleaded with them to give us a chance to show that those programs can succeed.

They funded fully our programs, our instructors.

By the way, this is a fully funded program except for the pay.

Half of the pay for each instructor comes from the school district.

So it was fully funded, the Army fully funded it for the next two years.

That gave us a chance to hire, fully hire our staff, and now those programs are at uh 160, minimum is 100, 120, and about 130.

Overall, we have over 900, almost a thousand students in the program.

So we've grown and we've shown that properly staffed, we we can succeed.

But now we face the concern that everyone can faces in the district, and that is the shortfall, the funding shortfall that the district has.

And unfortunately our positions are not immune from being cut.

At this point, uh I haven't heard anything that says we're gonna have positions cut this year, but uh I think we're still wrestling with the district is still wrestling with how they're gonna balance their budget.

One of the things to keep in mind is that if we lose a JROTC teacher or program, it's different than a math teacher.

First of all, it's very hard to find qualified people.

I might add that Supervisor Wong would qualify to be a JROTC teacher if he wanted to.

Uh but it is hard for us to find instructors.

So if we lose a program or we lose an instructor, it's not going to be able to just be put back in simply the next year.

So it it creates it creates a problem.

And once we lose a program, it's probably not going to come back because there's a standing list nationally.

Schools want these programs.

So it's really important that the city and its leadership, uh, the supervisors support the program and understand how important it is to our community.

And I, like Chris, would like to say that I was in the Army 23 years, but nothing can compare to what I've done for the last 28 years, which I see as helping people deliver develop leadership, citizenship, and life skills.

And above all, um I'm trying to help us develop good people, and I think that's what our mission is.

So uh I respectfully ask that you support uh this resolve resolution for continued commitment to preserving the program for the next generations.

Thank you very much.

Supervisor Wong.

Thank you for the speakers for coming and joining to speak today.

For for me, JRTC is so important to not only to students in my district, Lowell and Lincoln High School are both in District 4, but across the city with the the other high schools that are throughout the rest of San Francisco.

And I've been an advocate for JRTC since I was a high school student back in the day, I was uh student delegate to the San Francisco Board of Education as a student trustee, basically.

And I was never in GRTC.

My mom actually encouraged me not to sign up for JRTC when I was in high school because she was like, oh no, what if the Army recruits you?

So I I told my mom, oh, I prefer to I prefer to play basketball and do things in the gym anyway, and instead of uh doing whatever they're doing over there.

So that's why I told my mom when it's a high school kid.

And when I attended high school and I got to see what the GRTCE youth did, my classmates, I I saw the benefits that they gained.

It's just the camaraderie, the civic involvement, the leadership development.

It's a place where people learn so much and are able to gain confidence and become better citizens.

And that's what I saw as a peer at Lincoln High School, even though I was never involved in in the program at the and at that time never had any thoughts about joining the military at all.

Um later on there was a proposal at the school board to try to close the program.

And I and other students pushed hard to protect the JRTC program.

And also there's a proposition B that passed.

And for so long, the JRTC program has been at risk, and there are ongoing concerns about the long-term preservation of the program, and that's why this resolution is so important for students across the city that participate in this program and have had meaningful experiences and gained and have become better citizens and become better involved young people in our city.

And that's why I'm proud to support this resolution and the students that it means so much for the question.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Um I really appreciate everybody being here.

I'm reminded um it's funny.

So I I am reminded that when I was young, my father always encouraged me to go into the military.

And I always I just even i I just thought you know, I have no interest in that.

And it's only in hindsight that I realize like, you know, he did kind of get that.

I think I would have done well earlier in life with structure and discipline and things, things that I I ended up getting later in life.

So I I remember that fondly.

Um, you know, maybe I should have maybe an ROTC program.

Actually, I I could say not maybe.

It would have been good for me.

Um, but um I really think that you do something that's really important, and I appreciate everybody's presentation.

Um I share my colleagues' uh view that this is important, which is why I'm happy to be a co-chair.

Um so uh with that, I guess we can invite up public comment on this item.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, it appears we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And Supervisor Wong, would you like to make a motion of your choice with this item?

I'd like to move this forward with a positive recommendation to the full board.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Uh Madam Clerk.

We have a roll call on that motion.

Yes, and on the motion by Supervisor Wong, member Wong to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

I member Wong, I, Vice Chair Sauter, Victor Sauter, I, Chair Dorsey.

I.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Motion passes.

Congratulations, Supervisor Wong.

Madam Clerk, uh, would you please call item number four on the agenda?

Yes, item number four is a resolution condemning immigration and customs enforcement ice action urging the United States Congress to fund the Transportation and Security Agency and urging San Francisco law enforcement agencies to recommit to sanctuary city policies.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

And before we proceed, I want to note that this item was continued from the April 9th public safety and neighborhood services committee meeting to allow for more discussion.

Um after conversations with the police department, the sheriff's office, and the district attorney's office, um, I'm going to respectfully request a move uh three non-substantive amendments to the resolution.

Um I will say, and I when we talked about this um at the previous hearing, I had hoped to reach um you know perhaps some measure of consensus among colleagues that could be accomplished at the state level.

I will confess that that didn't happen.

And it I just feel that rather than make any kind of representations on my how my colleagues may feel about possible amendments.

And to the extent we may have uh disagreements about that at the full board, I think that's probably something that we can have a discussion about when it goes to the full board.

Um I would I will read that the motion I would I will now make a motion specifically to remove the language on page page one, lines 12 through 14, which reads, and later San Francisco Police Department officers arrived and formed a barrier around the ICE agents without requesting to see proper documentation, and to replace that with, and later, San Francisco Police Department officers responded to a 911 call for service, made contact with the involved parties, and confirmed the individuals were ICE agents.

Also, in the final further resolved clause, I would like to move to remove the words to recommit and to replace them with the words continue to abide to reflect the fact that the police department has always followed uh San Francisco sanctuary policies, including in this particular instance.

And finally, I would like to amend the long title of the resolution to read.

Uh resolution condemning immigration and customs enforcement ICE action, urging the United States Congress to fund the Transportation and Security Agency, and urging the San Francisco urging San Francisco law enforcement agencies to continue to abide by Sanctuary City policies.

So that's the motion, and I will just to recap for those who may not have been around.

There were some factual representations in this resolution that uh law enforcement disagreed with.

Um I have a lot of familiarity with the sanctuary ordinance from my time in the city attorney's office when we often defended that.

We were also uh as an office when I worked there.

The lawyers did a lot of great work to make sure that we were on the right side of our sanctuary city policies.

There was a time when Gavin Newsom was mayor and I was uh in the city attorney's office, Dennis Herrero was the city attorney.

Um it turned out that there was some things that the juvenile probation department was doing that were in violation of federal law.

At that time it started in the George W.

Bush administration, um, but it continued even into the Obama administration that the U.S.

attorney Joe Russinello was threatening criminal prosecution of city employees for just doing their job.

Um that was an adversarial time with our federal government partners, and that pales in comparison to the adversarial time we are in right now.

Um so I think it's really important that we be cautious in how we are describing things factually.

If we are going to put into the public sphere that police that undocumented immigrants can't trust law enforcement, then it defeats the purpose of having a sanctuary city policy at all.

I believe in sanctuary.

I think this is really important for public safety.

Um, but I also want to make sure that we're describing it correctly.

Um I'm hoping that we can all be on the same page on this, but I also just want to remind everybody that the biggest favor we could do as San Francisco, which is a very high-value political target for Fox News and you know people who are uh hostile to sanctuary city policies.

Um, we have to be very cautious.

Uh we have the right to to be a sanctuary city because the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives us the right as a state and location of state law, local government, to not do the work of Federal authorities.

However, we still have an obligation, a legal obligation to do the work that police departments have to do.

Um that doesn't mean we are we are facilitating or doing the federal government's job, but we definitely can't be in a situation because we would be in an unconstitutional situation if we were to prevent federal authorities from exercising their constitutional rights.

So we have to sort of walk a fine line on this.

Um I appreciate the work that all of the Deputy City Attorneys do on this, and that's uh why I think it's important that we hopefully will speak with one voice, but I do again don't want to speak for my colleagues.

Um I'm gonna make the amendment, and if people disagree at the full board, we can have that discussion then.

See oh, uh Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you.

Uh and and uh Madam Chair, I would just like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thanks.

Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call on the uh motion.

Oh, you know, Mr.

Chair, would you like to go into my public comment?

Madam Clerk, may we open this up to public comment?

Yes.

Members of the public who will like to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Peter Ralney.

I'm a resident of uh District 4.

I'm the retired organizing director of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union.

Good morning, supervisors.

I rise in strong support of the strongest possible sanctuary policy for San Francisco.

I want to see this city join the valiant and courageous citizens of Minneapolis in resisting ice terror and Trump fascism.

So I hope when this piece moves along that we're going to strengthen it and make a clear decoration in support of sanctuary.

But ultimately, the citizens of San Francisco can defend this sanctuary policy in the streets if we need to.

So thank you for your work.

And let's strengthen sanctuary as this piece of legislation moves along.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional public commenters for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is closed.

And now I would like to uh make the motion to adopt the um amendments that I read into the record and then forward this resolution to the full board of supervisors with our positive recommendation.

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as presented by uh Chair Dorsey and forward this resolution to the full board with positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Vic Chair Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey.

I'm sure Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And Madam Clerk, do we have any further business before this committee today?

That completes our meeting agenda.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you all for participating for your civic participation.

Today's meeting is now adjourned.