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 Thursday, May 28th, 2026.

I'm Supervisor Matt Dorsey, chair of this committee, and I'm joined by my fellow committee members, Vice Chair Danny Sauter and Supervisor Alan Wong.

We are grateful for our clerk today, Ms.

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

As well, we're appreciative to the entire team at SFGov TV for facilitating and broadcasting today's meeting, and that's especially true for our producer today, Mr.

Jaime Eshaveri.

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.

C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at SFGOV.org.

Or you may send your written comments via US Postal Service office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Good.

Please room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

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

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of June 9th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Would you please call item number one?

Yes, item number one is a hearing to discuss plans for increasing Southern Police District staffing.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, colleagues.

This hearing today is focused on staffing and resources for the Southern Police District.

Southern Station has been asked to do more with less for a long time.

This district faces some of the city's most significant public safety responsibilities.

It has major commercial and office corridors, high-density, residential neighborhoods, nightlife tourism, transit hubs, large events, open air drug markets, homelessness and dangerous traffic conditions that include some of our city's largest share of highway exits and access points.

It's no secret that our police department faces staffing challenges, but Southern staffing has historically been disproportionately low even compared to other districts.

We are not helping any public safety imperative by under resourcing that.

Although this hearing is not focused on SFP D understaffing challenges citywide, I do think the context of that is worth mentioning here.

And I know that this isn't what the hearing is about today, but we're going to be talking about deployment issues that are playing out with police staffing.

But I really think it's important that we understand that the original sin of police staffing is what this people, those of us who are elected leaders in this building, should have been doing 10 years ago, which is doing more to solve a police staffing problem that we knew was coming.

And you've probably all heard me say this before.

We can probably be forgiven for knowing that some of the, you know, that we didn't know that COVID was coming.

We didn't know that there would be a drug like fentanyl that was more potently addictive and would play out in public safety challenges.

We couldn't have imagined.

But we knew cops retire.

Um and we knew that there was a disproportionately large generational cohort of police officers, not just in San Francisco, but throughout the law enforcement profession, that we're approaching retirement age.

It's a very competitive environment.

So as we're sort of as we're bringing up people to sort of, you know, demand accountability, I want to make sure that you know that we're also, we as city leaders also need to accept responsibility for the role that we need to play to make sure that we're fixing the giving the police department um the resources it needs.

I just want to say that because I've spent a lot of time in this building and I've watched how city leaders sometimes will set departments up for failure and then make a big production of blaming them for failing.

So I just want to own that we as city leaders have have a role to play in this, that is in many ways, like I said, the original sin.

Um, this larger problem plays out obviously in a multitude of unfortunate outcomes, including whole categories of low-level crime that very quickly overwhelm our ability to respond, historically unprecedented levels of police overtime, and abysmal police response times citywide.

And that being said, the Southern Station has historically faced some of the worst response times for priority A, B, and C calls.

You will hear later from some of my constituents who have suffered some of the real world impacts of these response times.

It is unacceptable that Southern District residents wait much longer for basic city service than other parts of the city.

It's inequitable, and I want to hear from the department.

I know that they have plans to fix that.

Its challenge challenges will only be exacerbated later later this year, potentially, when the district expands to take on even more territory up to Market Street as part of the police redistricting changes to the boundaries.

During the police redistricting process, I was clear with the community and the department that increased call volumes must come with commensurate increases in additional officers.

District 6 stakeholders deserve transparency on SFPD's plan to not only increase staffing to meet the new workload, but to also address systemic understaffing that has plagued the district before its boundaries were expanded.

When the city makes promises to my constituents, I have a responsibility to hold them accountable and to ask why some of those commitments aren't being made or met.

Today's hearing is a centralized opportunity for the department to hear from the district six community and for the community to hear from the department on their staffing plan.

And before we start, I want to thank the many engaged members of the community who have taken time over the last year to engage with the redistricting process and the staffing analysis.

They've shown up to commission meetings to advocate for the resources we know our neighborhoods need.

We're going to have a presentation from SFPD, and after the department presentation, we'll also have some remarks from different different district six community groups, and then we'll go to public comment.

So first I would like to invite up, I believe uh Jason Cunningham is from SFPD.

Or does okay.

Yeah, good morning.

I'll start I'll kick us off anyways, and then let Jason take over on the presentation.

So, good morning, Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Sauter, Supervisor Wong.

I'm Chief Derek Lou, as you know, and I'm joined today by Deputy Chief of Field Operations Scott Biggs and Crime Strategies Division Program Manager, Jason Cunningham, who will handle the presentation.

But before we get into the presentation, I did want to take the opportunity to uh thank you very much for this opportunity to speak about um you know Southern staffing in a public forum.

It's obviously been a scenario that's caused a lot of concern, rightfully so, uh, with the community.

And I also wanted to acknowledge um uh the community for all of their input and clearly a lot of work and certainly in terms of data and uh advocacy uh for their for their neighborhood.

So I absolutely appreciate that.

And I just wanted to start off by saying that the department, myself, the leadership fully intends on working with you all to uh rectify this situation.

I think that that intention has been evidenced by the fact that we've already brought uh to us a material uh amount of resources back into this other and to help address um some of the issues, and that we just overall remain committed uh to working with you all to resolve this issue, at least getting it up to a commensurate level with the rest of the city.

So I wanted to uh say that.

Um so moving on, today's presentation provides an update on Southern Station staffing and deployment.

The presentation addresses two related operational issues.

First off, implementation planning associated with the approved district boundary changes and the projected increase in workload for Southern Station.

Second, the department's current response to public safety and treat conditions uh concerns within the district, including certain high demand areas in the SOMA.

The presentation will also address how technology and citywide coordination are supporting Southern Station operations and deployment planning.

Um I'll now turn it over to Jason to present, and Deputy Chief Biggs and I are happy to answer any questions that you may have after the fact.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr.

Cunningham to the public safety and neighborhood services committee.

The floor is yours.

Sir, great to see you.

Thank you, Chief.

Um DC Biggs, supervisors, good morning.

I'm Jason Cunningham, a program manager from the Crime Strategies Division of the San Francisco Police Department.

I'm going to be spending the next few minutes providing an overview of boundary changes in the Southern Police District.

So by way of overview, the police commission approved the district boundary changes in November of 2025.

This is after about a year's worth of process that we ran in about 2024, going through the commission process in 25.

Implementation for these boundary changes will occur on the 1st of October of this year.

These changes were approved by the police commission and they do require significant operational planning.

Under the new boundaries, Southern Station assumes additional geography to the north up to Market Street and projected additional workload.

Southern does give up a small amount of territory on its western side to the west of South Van S, which is moving to Northern District.

Implementation planning includes staffing analysis, sector adjustments, CAD and dispatch impacts, deployment planning, training, and operational coordination.

Next slide.

So this is our Southern new Southern boundary map.

It shows the boundary approved by the police commission.

Again, expanded territory up to Market Street, which are of which those areas were previously assigned to Tenderloin and Central Stations.

As the district footprint expands, the department must evaluate resulting impacts on calls for service, staffing, patrol sectors, and deployment.

Next slide.

So this is just a look at our calls for service showing projected increases in calls for service for Southern Station under the new district boundaries.

The analysis compares Southern's current workload against projected workload under the expanded district.

This was accomplished by looking at calls for service in 2024 and 2025 under current boundaries and then re-looking at those calls except under the expanded boundaries.

Priority A calls are expected to increase 18%, priority B 19%, priority C 28, with an overall increase of approximately 23%, going from 128,000 calls annually to about 158,000 calls annually.

As a reminder, this is a retrospective look.

I don't have a crystal ball.

I can't tell you exactly how many calls will occur once these boundaries move.

What we're looking at is what would have happened had these boundaries been in effect back in 2024 and 2025.

The department is evaluating staffing sectors and deployment deployment models against this projected increase in workload.

Next slide.

So this is a time of day breakdown, so just looking at calls for service in blocks of time.

The largest projected increase occurs during the evening hours between 8 p.m.

and midnight, where calls for service are projected to increase approximately 27%.

Other time periods show substantial projected increases ranging from approximately 20 to 24%.

This analysis is operationally important because it helps the department evaluate not only total workload but where and when that workload occurs.

It also helps explain why staffing and deployment needs vary throughout the day.

So staffing commiserate with boundaries.

So one of the central questions associated with the boundary changes is whether Southern staffing will be commiserate with the projected workload increases.

That's the purpose of the staffing analysis that's currently underway.

Southern has already received staffing increases in anticipation of these operational impacts.

The department is also evaluating additional staffing adjustments through transfers and academy graduates.

At the same time, the department continues to operate within citywide staffing constraints.

Our objective is to align Southern staffing and deployment as closely as possible with projected operational demand.

The staffing analysis from 2025 recommends 105 patrol officers for Southern Station under the old boundaries.

Under the new boundaries, that target is now 121.

Southern's current staffing level is up approximately 20 patrol officers since February of 2026, increasing from 91 to 111 as of today.

That is a 20% increase over the last several months.

Total sector patrol officers.

The department will continue to evaluate staffing needs in Southern and across the city to ensure efficient deployment of resources.

Next slide.

So Southern sectors and operational planning.

This is our slide showing the new patrol or the new patrol sectors for Southern Station.

Sector planning is a core part of the implementation effort and fundamental to SFPD deployment.

Under ideal conditions, each sector is staffed by its own patrol car with two officers at all times.

The department is evaluating how patrol geography, workload, dispatch routing, and field operations align under the expanded Southern footprint.

You'll notice that some sectors are not geographically equal, some are larger or smaller than others.

I will note there is an additional sector in Southern under this new sector map, which means fundamentally there is an additional patrol car on patrol in Southern 24 7 365 under ideal conditions.

The goal is to ensure the department is deploying resources efficiently within the new district boundaries.

Next slide.

So separate from our boundary implementation project, Southern Station is also responding to the current operational conditions and community concerns.

That includes additional deployment attention in certain high demand corridors within the district, including portions of SOMA and downtown.

Southern resources are also being supplemented by specialized citywide units to include the DMAC, narcotics, fugitive recovery team, and Honda unit.

The department also continues to coordinate with HSOC, DPW, and other city partners regarding street conditions and related public safety concerns.

Deployments remain flexible based on operational needs.

Next slide.

The map illustrates where operational demand is most concentrated, including portions of SOMA.

The department uses this type of operational data to help guide staffing and deployment decisions.

Calls for service density is one factor among several used to evaluate deployment needs.

Next slide.

Similarly, this is an incident density map showing incident reports that were generated in 2024 and 2025 under the new district boundaries and sectors.

Next slide.

This is a look at response times to calls for service in Southern Station by priority using 2024 and 2025 data.

Response times are affected by multiple operational factors, including staffing levels, call volume, geography, call prioritization, and competing citywide demands.

The department continues monitoring response times as staffing and deployment adjustments proceed.

Next slide.

And this is a look at that time period, 2024 and 2025 average response times by priority as compared to other stations across the city.

Southern Station is right in the average for priority A responses, but sits in the bottom quartile for both priority B and priority C responses during that time period.

Next slide.

These tools will help the department deploy limited staffing resources more effectively, particularly in high demand environments.

The department also continues coordinating with multiple city partners regarding street conditions, behavioral health concerns, encampments, cleaning operations, and public safety issues.

Many of the operational challenges affecting Southern require a coordinated city response.

So just some takeaways.

Southern Station faces both projected future workload increases associated with boundary changes and current operational pressures within the district.

The department is actively planning for both.

That work includes staffing analysis, sector planning, deployment adjustments, technology integration, and coordination with city partners.

We recognize the concerns raised by residents, businesses, and community stakeholders throughout the district, and the department continues working to align staffing and deployment with projected operational demand.

And with that, I will step back and we will stand by for questions or the next presentation.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Cunningham.

I um, you know, before we open up to some community remarks, I do have a couple quick um clarifying questions.

On one of the slides, there's a reference to I think we are the current staffing level, approximately 20 patrol officers, since we have added since December 2025.

What is the current staffing?

What is the current number of patrol officers and how does the number uh compare to the staffing analysis recommendation?

So as of to well, as of the last report, which is I want to say inside of 30 days, there were 11 patrol officers assigned to Southern Station, which is above where they were staffed back in.

Actually, the slide says uh December 2025.

So if you're looking for the target that we're going for under the new boundaries, we're looking to get to 121.

Okay.

Okay.

Could you clarify if the numbers include specialized units that provide support for Southern but don't um necessarily respond to calls for service?

So, for example, there's the drug market agency coordinating center, DMAC.

Um, I think there's the Mayor Lurie instituted the hospitality zone.

Can you describe um, you know, I appreciate those resources.

I think I suppose they're doing policing, although could you just clarify how that interacts with the staffing levels?

Sure.

Um, so the 111 personnel on ground are assigned specifically to sector patrol inside of Southern Station.

So they report to Southern Station every morning, go to lineup, you know, get their assignment, jump in a patrol car, out the door they go.

Um the 111 does not account for specialized units, footbeats, uh anything else assigned to Southern or anything else assigned citywide into the Southern district.

Okay.

Okay, Vice Chair Saughter.

Uh thank you, Chair Dorsey, and thanks for calling this.

Um I'm happy to hear about the recent additions and some progress there.

Are those coming from other stations?

Are those coming from the academy?

What does that mix look like?

Uh good morning, uh Scott Biggs, uh Deputy Chief of Field Operations.

Uh, thanks for having me.

So if you don't mind, can you repeat that last question for the these recent 20 additions to Southern Station if they're coming from other stations or if they're primarily out of the academy, just trying to get a sense of of where they're coming from to understand, you know, particularly with the academy, are uh are those new uh graduates being prioritized for Southern Station?

How does that look?

Yeah, so the uh the the 20 increase from December of 2025 to present is a combination of a couple of things.

One, um, new recruits coming out of the academy go into field training phase, and then they um we um send additional resources into Southern, and then um second is when they're finished the field training phase, um, then we have the opportunity of shifting resources around within the city uh between our district stations to where then at that point in time we can also additionally supplement um the station, and then third, we have um officers who put their name on a list and they want to um work at Southern District.

So we take into account all of these three buckets, and then that's when we're able to uh shift resources.

And is it fair to say from December to now, you know, that addition of 20, is that the the largest addition to any station?

I'm just trying to get a sense of are are we actually truly adding incremental here.

Yes Southern station staffing is a priority we do know that the boundaries are changing and the workload is going to increase so we've been prioritizing that as a number one priority for us in shifting officers into that district.

Good and in terms of the I'm just curious about the drone pilot that was mentioned what does that look like?

Yeah so DFR drone is a first responder kind of how that's going to look like is that we will be leveraging drones to respond to specific calls for service probably lower level calls for service so probably not a priority be more like B and C priority calls that'll do a couple things for us.

One it'll be a lot more efficient for the officers who are responding a lot of these calls are gone on arrival or unable to locate so if we can clear these calls with a drone then a physical officer or patrol car doesn't have to respond to that you know to that scene.

Two um what it'll do is a drone can get there a lot quicker than the officers can get there and then can potentially help divert these officers to the actual individuals that folks are calling about out on the street to where instead of going to the scene and then having to waste time driving around looking for uh individuals who have may have uh created a or caused a crime to occur then we'll be able to address those um a lot more efficiently and I know we're using drones more citywide but this particular type of response with drones is this in play any in any other district right now or is this a first of its kind in San Francisco?

So once we get once we get the pilot off the ground we haven't gotten there yet we're still in um the beginning phases of working through the process it will be specific for Southern district and it's not happening anywhere else right now that is correct.

Okay.

Good I think that's well I guess my my last question I mean and hopefully so my last question we heard from concerns from particularly from SOMO SCBD on some of the response times.

I'm hoping I'm thinking already ahead to the to the drone response that that could be a approach.

Are there any reasons right now why the response times are slow?

I mean is is it really to the is it really related to the staffing shortage anything else at play in Southern we should know about yeah so I think it's I think it I think it's a couple of different things.

One staffing shortages always will increase response times because we just don't have the officers to um to respond to the calls for service that are coming in.

What we're hopeful though is that um just recently within the last 30 days we've shifted additional resources so these are going to be like the DMAC officers or our Honda units that will come into this area that will be able to address some of the community concerns for a lot of the street condition issues that are happening to where hopefully with this deployment this you know the substitute with the deployment of these additional officers will assist in reducing some of those calls for service because it'll be more of like a proactive type policing environment.

And my last question uh foot beats within Southern uh how do those look right now um yeah so we um we still have our hospitality zone that is primarily associated with like I'll just say Moscone and around the uh streets of Moscone and then just recently I want to say within the last 30 to 60 days we sent um eight officers which is a part of the 20 that we sent from December those officers are primarily assigned um seven days a week to SOMA specifically currently doing a lot of work in the six street corridor in the alleys okay thank you.

Thank you vice chair of Sauter Supervisor Wong.

Thank you for the presentation I wanted to learn a little bit more about the police district changes how does that usually happen is that once every so many years or when there's uh a need that's seen, and uh how is it determined?

Is it based on geographical area staffing, or how many were the what areas have more acute issues?

Yes, sir.

Um great question.

So uh the staffing uh the boundary analysis is mandated in the admin code uh once every 10 years after the end of the decennial census.

And so we started uh planning for this actually back in 2023 uh while we were waiting for the final outputs from the Census Bureau uh to come out, which come out roughly 2023 2024.

They get to their most detailed level of release.

The admin code actually dictates 10 different factors that we have to take into account, and so response time, neighborhoods, geography, um, public input, supervisor input, a whole host of different things.

Um, and over 2024, uh what the department did was put together with uh a contractor, an engagement plan and an analysis plan that looked at all of these 10 um different factors that got us to a round of internal discussion within the SFPD and then eventually discussions with community on what kind of boundary changes we would like.

Uh all of this is documented.

I believe the website off the top of my head is SFPD boundaryanalysis.com.

Um I believe the entire report is posted there, it's also posted on our website.

Um, but it is mandated in the admin code once every 10 years for us to take a look.

It does not actually require that we change anything, but based on our analysis and the conversations that we had with everyone, we landed at the changes that at least for Southern we presented today.

Okay, and then for the you mentioned census, is there a uh any sort of requirement for population or it or it's there's no requirement for equal population in need.

Uh the admin code requires us to uh use population as part of our analysis.

Uh it doesn't say how to use population as part of our analysis, although we did take it into account.

So we obviously don't want to have you know a district that has 10 people in it and a district that has a hundred thousand people in it.

That's you know not useful or equitable.

Um so it was part of the analysis when we uh initially sat down.

Okay, and I got a similar question to super what supervisor solder mentioned.

I want to uh selfishly ask for kind of related to to my own district too.

So we have 54 officers at the Terraville station when I remember in the past it was over I think 120 before many years uh many years back.

So I'm just one to understand how how the uh department decides to if officers are moved from one district station to another based on on needs, how how that is done.

Sure, I'll I'll default to my operational partners, yeah.

So we're we we're constantly looking at um personnel assigned to all district stations across the board.

Um so, for example, for Terravel, um I do believe currently today, 59 officers, and when I say officers, I don't mean like sergeants, lieutenants, and captain, just patrol officers assigned to sector patrol or assigned.

So we do take into consideration across the board when the pipeline allows us, like for new recruits and things along those lines.

Um I do believe that Terravel is not a training station, so it it it prevents us from sending new recruits to Terravel, but once they get out of their field training um field training phase, then at that point is when we can distribute accordingly throughout the rest of the city.

Okay, and so does the department ever how every require officers or tell officers that they need to move to more priority areas, or more areas of more acute need.

Yeah, so um, unfortunately, um we have a couple of different ways that we can shift officers, but they're bound by union rules.

So it's really um the officers that we can shift are our probationary officers.

Um after that, then it um becomes like a P1 request that the officer has to actual request to go to the physical station itself.

Um, and then you know, so usually how we shift officers around is when they're coming out of their training phases and into their probationary phases or out of their probationary phase into their permanent officer phases when we can shift these officers around in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you, um Chief.

Thank you, Mr.

Cunningham.

I probably will have some more questions, but um I do want to get to some of our community presenters.

Um we're gonna start with the South Beach Rink and Mission Bay Neighborhood Association, represented today by Sarah Bertram.

Ms.

Bertram, welcome to the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

The floor is yours.

Hi, good morning, Chair Dorsey and Vice Chair Sauter and Supervisor Wong.

I am Sarah Bertram, a longtime resident of San Francisco.

I'm a parent and I'm a board member on the South Beach Rincon Mission Bay Neighborhood Association.

Here today to highlight the urgency of equitable staffing increases for Southern Station.

I really appreciate the intention on this matter.

As has been referenced by Scott, there was a boundary analysis and a comprehensive report done in 2024.

That report documented comprehensively over the recent decade the highest demand for priority A calls on Southern.

It's lower staffing relative to other stations, and noted that the service demands from Oscone Center and our two major event centers were not even calculated in that data.

For 10 years, as we've discussed, Southern has been behind its counterparts in staffing, and the situation is set to compound as it absorbs the Market Street corridor.

This doesn't sit right with me, and I hope it doesn't sit right with you.

We understand that all stations are understaffed.

We are not looking for privileged treatment.

We're looking for a few things.

Staffing commensurate with documented workload within the parameters of existing staffing numbers, equitably allocated.

Clarity, which we got a little bit of this morning, on how the drug market agency coordinating center, the DMAC unit, and also the hospitality task force, both of which are within Southern's boundaries, are staffed to ensure that these numbers are not counted as part of Southern's core staffing.

And then third, staffing to fill the footbeat positions designated to serve the embarcadero navigation center.

There is a city approved MOU in place governing this, but Southern is currently relying on volunteers as available, and overtime pay.

We would like to see that changed.

Our Southern Station officers and our succession of captains have really been doing an impressive impressive work, and they have our full support.

But what they really need is the same thing that people living and working in Southern's boundary areas deserve, which is for high level SFPD management to supplement the Southern Station staffing numbers relative to the documented demands and in proportion to all districts.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Bertram.

Uh next up, we're going to hear from the Mission Bay neighbors.

Um Bettina Cohen.

Welcome, Ms.

Collins to the public safety committee.

The floor is yours.

Good morning, supervisors and police staff.

My name is Bettina Cohen.

For identification purposes, I am the president of the new Mission Bay Neighborhood Association.

I want to start by thanking Supervisor Dorsey for holding this hearing.

Mission Bay Neighborhood Association formed in part over concerns related to Southern's understaffing.

Glacial response times for priority C calls in our neighborhood, which can extend into days while there are events at Moscone, Oracle Park, and Chase Center, and our alarm at the expansion of the Southern District and the recent police redistricting.

A not well-known fact about Mission Bay is that hundreds of units of housing are permanent supportive housing.

These neighbors are represented by the new Mission Bay Neighborhood Association, with a couple of them serving on our board.

Mission Bay neighbors include elderly and disabled people, families with young children, and there are easily more than a thousand low-income families and individuals, including formerly unhoused neighbors.

Mission Bay's priority C calls have the slowest response time in the city, while we are the neighborhood welcoming Chase Center and Oracle Park crowds.

The games and concerts are contributing to the city's economic recovery.

And are occurring simultaneously with greater frequency.

My personal experience last fall, when dual events occurred, was that two days went by before a priority C call at my building was answered after my building was vandalized and personal property was stolen, including thefts from our mailroom.

I attended a Southern Station community meeting the second night after the break-in, where police staff informed me that Southern had more than 30 unanswered service calls that day, and my building was one of those unanswered calls.

I spoke at police commission hearings twice in the past year, but commissioners persisted in framing redistricting and understaffing in terms of Southern isn't as bad as the TL.

I spoke at police commission.

Yeah, okay.

I described changes I'm seeing in my neighborhood and told commissioners in one hearing.

Equity is not achieved by making other neighborhoods suffer as the TL suffers.

One more plea.

Please ensure that Southern is adequately staffed for greater enforcement of traffic laws in our neighborhood so that we do not see another tragedy like the one that occurred on February 27th, when a two-year-old girl was fatally injured and her mother severely injured while crossing Fourth Street at Channel on a night when events were happening in two venues.

Greater police presence would deter violent driving.

Please take us seriously when we request adequate staffing for the soon to be expanded Southern District.

Our staffing levels need to match the Southern Station's workload.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Cohen.

And now we will next up have two brief presentations from the Solma West Neighborhood Association, and that's going to be starting with uh Risa Isbel, Mr.

Isbell.

Welcome to the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

The floor is yours.

Thank you very much.

Um, and thank you for holding this.

It's um appreciated.

Uh my name is Reese Isbow.

I'm the founder and president of the Summer West Neighborhood Association.

To be blunt, we exist because of the de facto withdrawal of basic municipal services in our neighborhood of Summer West.

This unfortunately includes the detrimentally inefficient attention and support to Southern Station over the years.

True life examples include neighbors developing a Slack channel to discuss the huge 50 plus open-air drug market in front of the lobby, or to share safety suggestions when one of the neighbors notices a guy with a machete outside the lobby, or to create our own version of a patrol channel so we could be notified if there were other threats outside when we were coming and going inside of our homes.

Neighbors creating a WhatsApp group just to handle updating each other over encampments and drug users creating mounds of trash, meetings by a group of parents worried about the safety of their kids while drug deals on their formerly family-friendly street grow exponentially, organizing safety classes taken by gay men in the neighborhood to deal with the increased number of times we're all called faggots by the dealers and users, working together to block covered parking spaces and move public bus shelters because they had become drug dens rather than anyone using them for parking or bus rides.

Small businesses convening as they were overwhelmed by burglaries, trash, human pee and waste, graffiti, and drug use blocking their business entryways and hurting their bottom lines.

These individual organic acts, and they were many of them individual organic acts on their own of neighbors and small businesses trying to find some kind of semblance of sanity in a neighborhood overrun by crime, violence, hate speech, and drug markets all led to the fact that we formed as an organization.

No, the neighborhoods of Soma West have not been well served by the police over the years, nor were served well by the city government as a whole.

At the very same time that Southern Station was barely functioning, other city departments began treating the neighborhood as a containment zone of the city's problems without a strategy or a desire in dealing with the public safety impacts of those services to the neighborhood.

When we as neighbors would go to these services and ask for support in keeping the drug dealers away, who were literally outside their very own doorstep preying on the clients of these services, providers would tell us that it was not their role, and that we should call the police.

Not only did this not help the neighborhood, it also exacerbated the crisis within Southern Station in responding to respondents' general concerns.

This use of fuzzy math in city departmental budgeting, not considering the larger neighborhood impacts of programs being brought in and choosing to push that onto other departments like SFPD or DPW, eventually led our neighborhood to create a community benefit district to clean up the mess that was left by all the trash, but also recently added a one-of-a-kind security ambassador program to make up for the lack of support to residents from Southern Station.

While the Safety Ambassador programs have been incredibly helpful to neighbors, the more they are deployed and finance, their increased use tends to suppress the data for the needs for staffing at Southern Station.

It's been popular for city leaders to claim that crime is going down and things are looking up for the city.

That is simply not the reality in Soma West, with the deficient attention and resources provided to our Southern Station.

It is not enough to say that Southern Station will have a few more officers or expanded technology like drones.

If the reality is on the ground is that we still suffer like this living in our home in district six.

It is not enough to get better at responding to the crises under the old lines when the new lines greatly expand the district and needs for help.

We went to the police commission last year several times to speak about our concerns about the inadequate support already under the old lines and our fears that an expanded district would just make things worse.

I have not yet seen anything which makes me feel the city is adequately addressing the issues of residents and businesses in District 6 under the Southern Station.

As such, we will continue to speak out at the police commission, SAPD meetings in the community, and with all of our elected leaders until public safety is provided equitably for Soma West, as the city has shown it can do for other safer neighborhoods in the city.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Isabel.

And uh next up, also from the Soma West Neighborhood Association, Sean Auckland.

Mr.

Ockman.

Welcome you to the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Good morning.

My name is Sean Auckland, also representing the Soma West neighborhood as a board member.

Today I'll walk you through some data that we've pulled, the methodology of which we have already vetted with the city, and so know to be accurate.

I firmly believe that the only way we can make progress on this issue is if we have a common understanding of the problem.

And I will admit I'm a bit frustrated by today's presentation because despite sharing this data, there's nothing that I will show today that hasn't been shared with SFPD and the Commission and the supervisors.

Today we appear to still be walk talking past one another.

And I actually want to pick up with one of the slides that SFPD presented.

So their presentation acknowledges the long uh wait times, but uh this particular chart here uh does not show citywide median.

It shows two years worth of data, and it's gotten worse over the last year, and it is absolute times instead of percentages.

So I took the same slide and I adjusted it for you.

So this is now just the last 12 months where things have worsened.

It shows percentage variation from citywide mean, and it is sorted by priority B.

You know, priority A, we tend to have uh equitable response times in this city, and that is a good thing.

From the research that we have done, a normal variance on any given day would be 10 to 15% due to geography differences, uh staffing differences on a week to week basis.

But once you start to exceed greater than 20% differences by neighborhood, that is structural, that is systemic.

And when that goes on more than a couple months, that is a choice.

You can see here that there are two neighborhoods that stand out that are treated differently by San Francisco.

Southern residents waited 45% longer for priority B responses compared to the citywide median, and the tenderloin was even longer.

And we bring them along in our arguments today.

We do not need to keep shifting the problems back and forth between Soma and the tenderloin.

We want to heal both neighborhoods.

Our most common priority B call is fight, no weapon.

So I want to emphasize that these are active, volatile conflicts, and the city is failing to staff according to need, thereby deprioritizing and compromising the baseline safety of residents within the containment zone it has created.

You can see also that San Francisco suffers the longest priority C times in the city at 47% longer than citywide average.

A lot has been said about the citywide staffing crisis.

It is fully irrelevant to this conversation.

This is about how we deploy the resources we have.

So a couple data points that I shared.

This is a decade of deliberate abandonment of Southern.

So I want to be clear, this is not new, and it has gotten worse over time.

We analyze the same database for calls going back 10 years.

That's several million calls.

The middle line here at 0% is the citywide median response time, again for priority B calls, normalized to zero.

The line above it represents how much longer SOMA waited in any given month.

You can see that historically we have been within normal variation and less than systemic.

However, SOMA experienced priority B response times that massively diverged starting in 2022.

So another boogeyman that has been described here is COVID.

During COVID, the police came.

The diversion started in 2022.

And recently, since January 2025, our wait times have spiked dramatically to sometimes 80% longer, 92% longer in December, and 62% longer just a month ago.

This shows that our safety was deliberately deprioritized when staffing was stretched.

So when officers retired, we bore the brunt, not the rest of the city.

Our wait times have now been deeply inequitable for 18 months, and that roughly coincides with the inauguration of the Leary administration.

I don't know why, but it's obvious.

Now let's talk about a tale of two neighborhoods.

Whether you are inside or outside the city's chosen containment zone where they withdraw police.

This is the exact same graph that I showed you before, but I added one more line, which is hate Ashbury.

Haight-Ashbury has an average household income that is double that of SOMA and is geographically not very far.

So while our wait times skyrocketed, their neighborhood service by park station enjoyed a decade of systemically faster response times.

And again, in 2022, when officers retired, SOMA got disproportionately worse, and the hate got disproportionately better.

We did not all suffer the same consequences.

Now, lastly, we've heard about the fix, which is we hear you.

We have been sharing this data with the police commission, both chiefs of police and supervisors going back to last fall, but no changes were made.

And yes, in March, we filed a complaint with the state.

And in the last month, SFPD has added eight officers to Southern Station to address these glaring inequities.

That is according to a different SFPD staff member, and I acknowledge I hear the number of 20 today.

Whether it's eight or twenty, it has barely made an impact.

Even with those changes, uh, month to date, May 1st to four days ago, three days ago, our priority B calls have gotten a little bit better.

Let's go back.

What were we?

Uh 62 in April, uh, and we are now 43.

And so we slightly moved the number, but we remain systemically understaffed.

The baseline deficit is so severe that minor staffing adjustments do not and have not resolved this disparity.

Now that brings us to the boundary expansion.

As F SFPD acknowledged in their presentation just now, this expansion will add a 23% increase in call volume.

And they have shared that they will add five to ten officers to the current roster, which would result charitably in a six to twelve percent staffing increase.

So I believe what was asked today was to come to this hearing and share with us a solution to us being the worst staffed district and the slowest response neighborhood.

But what I think I'm seeing is that they have showed how they will make it worse by October, which is to add more call volume than incremental officers when the problem is already bad.

I will just say our neighborhood, the staffing boundary change is a distraction.

We are not staffed equitably today.

So how could we trust that adding more calls will add more officers when we're saying out loud you don't have to have a math degree to know that the title on this is correct?

We will make the worst district even worse.

Why?

Because it is a matter of policy.

It is by design, it allows us to protect the other neighborhoods that make more money and that have more political influence.

And I want to close by talking about culture.

Within the last week, a senior member of SFPD command staff shared this quote with me.

We have a saying in SFPD.

The best go to the West to rest, and officers get to choose where they work.

We cannot make people go to Southern.

Well, I think what you have there is a policy that does not staff according to need, and you have a culture that avoids the worst places and the worst places are created by the city.

So I don't have a solution.

I am only asking for help because this is by design.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

Mr.

Auffund, and it is a custom of the Board of Supervisors to refrain from audible signs of appreciation or criticism, but jazz hands are fine.

Um but thank you for the presentation and for the for your work on this.

I want to thank all the district six groups who have presented today.

And also note that these are groups that have been actively involved in so many ways in the neighborhood, including the police redistricting process.

Um, many of them have taken time to attend police commission meetings to advocate for more staffing.

Um I appreciate that staffing is seeing progress.

I do think it's unfortunate that it took the kind of organizing effort and the the heavy lift of research to really elevate this in ways that were successful in getting attention to the disparities, it certainly got my attention.

So I'd like to, if I could call the department up for a couple more questions.

The core question for me from this hearing is when can Southern district residents expect to see improved response times.

And how does the staffing plan address the deep inequity faced by Southern constituents?

And I don't know if that's Chief Biggs, I'm not sure or Cunningham or Chief Liu.

So I guess I'll start with just saying that it's not quite as easy as moving, you know, a huge swath of people over to a particular station.

Clearly we have some union rules that we have to abide by.

We have uh what's already been discussed at P1 list.

Um, but we're we are making a good faith effort to bring um resources to Southern, again, eight officers, which I think does not seem like a lot.

I will say that it is very difficult to even bring eight officers to a particular station because of various reasons.

There are many opportunities for us to do to make those moves that that that uh DC Bakes spoke about.

Um I have a lot more confidence in the fact that I think that DFR will be a game changer.

There are anecdotal um you know data with other major agencies that have employed DFR programs that have reduced, for example, uh calls for service um need needing to be responded to by live officers by upwards of ten percent.

So um and that is that doesn't even account for the efficiencies that drones provide to officers in terms of information, where to go, how many officers would need uh to go in the first place, or for supervised street supervisors to be able to take information and then be able to coordinate how many officers need to go to a particular incident.

So I do believe that the drone pilot program will add uh efficiencies that just we won't be able to tell until we see that.

So, you know, we've we've increased officers up to this point, clearly is not to the amount that the community wants, but this is something we're we're committed to continue to monitor the situation.

Um I won't go delve into the past and you know the the feelings towards what the city or the department has done in terms of the southern.

I can just tell you that under my leadership and this command staff, we're committed to continuing to watch watch what the progress is like, and we're making we're perfectly willing to make adjustments as possible, and then uh taking into account that we do need to run um the rest of the city as well.

There's a certain sunk cost that is baked into running a station.

So in order to run a 24-7 operation, you just can't fall below certain levels.

I don't know if that's helpful.

It is in the in the presentation um there was a heat map with some clear hot spots.

Um is it possible to address both how the hotspots impact deployment decisions, and then I also note um there's an incident.

There is a separate um measure for calls for service versus incidents, and I just would I welcome just an explanation of how that can play out.

Sure.

Um so calls for service are one measure that we can use to measure officer workload.

So call comes in, officer goes out and responds to it at some point in time.

Uh incident reports are another way we can measure officer workload.

So obviously somebody has to, after taking a call, if that call results in an arrest, a citation, a use of force, any any number of things.

An officer then has to come off the street to write that report.

So the number of reports, where they are generated, how many are generated, are also a different way we can measure how much work officers are engaged in across both time and location.

Okay.

Is it the case that um let's say, for example, it was brought up that a priority B example would be a fight.

Let's say there's a fight on 6th Street.

Is it the case case that there might be five or six calls for service on one incident?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

I think I was I think just getting teasing out why there's it's it's almost more intensity uh when you look at the heat map on calls for service versus incidents.

We will we traditionally see hundreds of thousands of calls, whereas we see tens of thousands of incident reports.

Okay.

Do we have a sense of when would Southern be fully staffed at recommended levels?

And is and maybe let me let me say this.

I think this is may also a larger question that goes to some of the introductory remarks.

I'm not going to give up on getting to a fully staffed police department.

So this may be future hearings and the conversations that we need to have in the months and years ahead.

But what do we think in terms of getting to a recommended staffing level?

Yeah, so I I think I I think I would say that there's a couple of um key milestones uh coming up here in the near future, boundary implementation in October 1st.

Um as the chief had mentioned, uh, we are committed to Southern District, we are committed to continue to increase staffing at Southern.

Um it's it's hard to say exactly when a station will be at full staffing because there's so many other caveats that go into it, how many recruits are coming into this uh into the department and you know whether or not you know the the influx and how many classes we're gonna have.

So it really boils down to the you know the influx into the department of how many officers and then once and it there's a there's a timeline to that because we only can we only are able to have so many recruit classes per year.

So, you know, as the years progress, then you know, I'm very hopeful that you know, with our um very robust recruitment um strategy that we have that we will continue to have an influx of um officers coming from all over the place um to support um SFPD.

So I don't necessarily have a specific date, but I you know you do have our commitment on uh Southern District and all districts in San Francisco as well.

Okay.

There was one uh and then finally there was one thing that came up.

Um I think Ms.

Bertram raised it about the the city had made a commitment on footbeats at the navigation center near the um embarcadero.

And I wanted to just ask if there's a status report on that.

Yeah, I think it was mentioned today that um currently how that uh deployment is operating is on an overtime basis until we can get enough officers into Southern Station to where we would be able to then deploy on duty officers to that area.

Okay, thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Chiefs, Mr.

Cunningham, uh neighbors.

Um seeing no one on the roster with more questions or comments.

Madam Clerk, may we 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.

First speaker, please.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Debbie Gould.

I am part of Captain Hurley's community police advisory board, that's CPAP, uh, and I'm also a retired flight attendant, and I've been mulling over everything in the last couple of days, and it brought to mind the times that my employer would close the door while we were understaffed.

We would be understaffed by two, three, four flight attendants sometimes on a full load.

And a full load could be 350 passengers.

And long story short, the company knew that we could do it.

Uh, and oftentimes we would have we would get paid anywhere from 25 to 40 dollars an hour per flight attendant that we were missing.

Uh we would much rather have the bodies, we would much rather have the flight attendants, as the police officers who are working overtime, would much rather have their colleagues.

It says safety with respect, it goes both ways.

Uh I always tell the officers get home safely.

But that also means get home without burnout.

And they burn out quickly if they're constantly working understaffed.

I also have one question, is putting uh Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island on the table, moving it from Southern over to Central.

That would free up at least two uh police officers at Southern.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

Appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Lucas Illa.

I'm a district nine resident.

Um I do want to um pick on the issue of, and I do appreciate that the Soma West folks admitted that they don't necessarily have a solution.

Um I think one of the areas that we should be focusing on is whether or not police are the best respondents to priority C calls like encampment removals or responding to the site of visible poverty.

And I'm not talking about fights, I'm not talking about violence.

I'm talking about folks that do not have the economic means for privacy.

And is there the same level of commitment and energy around improving shelters, making shelters more inviting, expanding the community spaces, the recreation spaces in shelters, providing physical space for folks to go, other than clearing them out block by block, because I think that we are in agreement that does not work, and it's a constant move for officers as well as the homeless folks experiencing the move, the frustration from neighbors complaining about the site of visible poverty.

And I'm not debating the um the um validity of those complaints.

I'm more saying that I think we're right on the cusp of grasping that police are not the best use for those types of calls.

Where are the social workers?

Where is the housing?

Where is the dignified shelter, and where why is that not the focus and at least part of the conversation for police staffing?

Um, I have, you know, I'm not commenting on the the expansion of the Southern precinct.

I'm not commenting on police staffing at large.

I'm just saying the prioritization of the use of officers for this means.

I think everyone is in agreement that that is not what works.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

I was one of the ones that lived in the district six.

I had encountered uh the worst thing ever living in District 6 is one of the beautiful areas, right?

You have the Chase Center, you have all these nice buildings and everything, but the people, the the structure of how people are living in in these places is bad.

It's bad.

And when you go to the district uh supervisor of that district and you explain to him what's going on, and nothing happens, it's a problem for me, right?

And it's a problem for a lot of us that that lives in the district.

So when you sit here and you ask questions about what's going on and how many police is working and how many people just coming out, you have five cars coming out for one call.

That doesn't make any sense unless it's something really major going on, right?

So I I feel like there's more that the district supervisor could do uh for that district, as opposed to just saying, okay, I'm gonna take care of it, and nothing ever happens.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Leah.

I've been a district six resident for more than 10 years.

You heard SFPD say that they consider a number of factors when determining boundaries as documented in the staffing analysis.

Despite reading this analysis, I cannot figure out how an assessment of population change or call volume or crime rates or really anything else would possibly lead to the conclusion that Southern station boundary should be expanded.

Today, Southern already has the most calls, the slowest response times, and disproportionately few officers.

Tenderloin admission used to be the highest crime areas per capita, but now it's Southern, including for violent crime, and that's before the boundary changes.

It makes no sense to add a large high crime area on top of the city's already most overloaded police station.

And it's even more baffling when you consider that the financial district, South Beach, Mission Bay, and Soma are some of the most economically critical parts of San Francisco.

I appreciate that SFPD is adding more staff to Southern, but the outcome matters a lot more than the inputs.

We will know Southern is staffed appropriately when Southern response times are in line with the rest of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is David Singer.

I'm a resident of SOMA.

We need to staff Southern Station to meet the strategic needs of the city and the needs of those who live and work there.

SOMA supports the city.

SOMA has grown and supported the city's strategic housing needs by adding more housing than any other district.

SOMA is one of the engines driving city recovery, hosting many startups and new businesses.

Yet SOMA's tax revenue, both property and sales tax, is affected by the street conditions.

We do not have the policing to protect and encourage our engine of recovery.

SOMA supports the city.

SOMA is proud to support the city's needs in services, notably homeless services, but it's currently overloaded with them.

Many of them using these services find the street conditions frightening.

We do not have the police to support the level of service needed.

The new street patrols are a welcome start to addressing this, but they do not operate 24 by 7, and Southern Station, astonishingly, has no homeless specialists.

We are staffing Southern only enough to manage a problem, not to solve it.

The correct staffing in SOMA will enable a stronger city recovery, more income, and long-term staffing will save money by solving problems rather than simply mitigating them forever.

Southern St staff Southern Station, we can fuel the engines of housing, growth and recovery.

Staff Southern Station, the existing leadership and staff are excellent.

With the staff, they can do the job, and we can transform the core of San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Supervisors.

I'm Alex Sudlam, ED of Soma West Community Benefit District.

Um I would echo a lot of comments said uh earlier and uh wanted to share uh an anecdote from late 2023, uh, when a young, inexperienced man visited us to ask us to vote for him for mayor.

Um, and we, it was a bad time, a worse time than now, uh, in which our restaurants were getting robbed twice in the same week at gunpoint, and this and that.

Um, and he came to a very angry room, and he and people were saying, ah, crime's out of control.

And he said, guys, guys, don't worry about it.

Crime is out of control everywhere.

I was just in the Richmond and people are running red lights.

And obviously the room went really silent, and we had to have a word afterwards.

But uh I did want to point out that Southern Station is in the same position as the residents of Soma.

Uh, the rest of the city is screwing Southern Station.

Um obviously a district with uh both stadiums and Treasure Island uh has too much on its plate, whatever the response times were.

Uh those are like just such critical hubs.

Um, and so to add these very high volume, very problematic blocks.

Um, the police commission intentionally uh set Southern Station up to fail further in the next 10 years of its boundaries.

So that is what uh we are working against, and in the last month, there's definitely been directional improvements.

Um the new the new deployments are having an immediate effect.

Um, so we're very glad to see footballs uh for the first time in a general comment.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Danny and Allen, we need your police.

I'm sorry.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Margaret Keene, almost 20-year resident of District 6 and a member of Captain Hurley's CPAB.

A fully staffed Southern District is the tipping point between the economic engine that drives the city or what we see in the Doom Loop pictures on X and Fox News.

I'd like to see the first.

Am I exaggerating?

No, I'm not.

Let's look at some different numbers.

Let's look at custodial arrests.

Custodial arrests are when somebody goes to jail.

These are felons.

These are not people who get a citation in a court date.

These calls take longer, they take longer to process, they can take hours as opposed to minutes.

With the new boundaries, Southern will lead that for the city with over a thousand custodial arrests a year.

To date, without the new territory, Southern's custodial arrests have increased by 138% in the last four years.

Basically, when you look at the tenderloin and Southern, you have approximately 40% of the custodial arrests in the city.

That means we have the most serious crime problem, and we need to be staffed differently, telling us, hey, the whole city's understaffed.

We have a different problem, and we need different resources.

We also have reports that use old stale data.

We are the intergalactic capital of AI.

We have NVIDIA Anthropic and OpenAI in walking distance from Southern Station.

And yet we did a boundary report with 2019 to 2023 data.

We couldn't do better than that, huh?

Um, none of the word the numbers came out wrong.

Our 2025 staffing analysis, it's based on calls for service.

Let's look at the stop data.

Let's see where Southern is in that.

We're on the top.

How many of those calls come from citizens?

Those are officer initiated on view calls.

Those are not calculated in the Sedaffing model used in the 2025 report.

It's time for us to look at the data, wake up and recognize all our children are not equal, they need different things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello.

I just have a few points and questions to make.

And I want to echo the point that Lucas made earlier about the police not being a solution to say homeless encampments.

And the word equitable is being used a lot.

So I would just like to flush that out some that if you want equitable police staffing and equitable solutions to the violence and poverty you see on the streets, you should actually put more police over on the west side and on billionaires' row and give us the resources that these billionaires and wealthier people have, so that's people can handle uh mental health issues, uh substance use disorder, some very basic things, housing, access to health care.

That would be a fleshed out equitable solution, not just throwing the hammer at the people suffering the most who are the most poor, who um are black and brown communities, immigrant immigrant communities, queer communities, et cetera.

Um, I wonder how is a containment zone even created.

To me, you would need the cooperation of the police to hyper police the area around a containment zone, which I see on a nightly basis.

I have police stations uh multiple locations in front of my door every night.

Um every time I come down to open my front door, I see a police vehicle drive by.

So there's no lack of police in our area.

Um, and to not respond or not deal with issues within the containment zone.

Just throwing that out there.

Also, District six has twice the amount of drone surveillance time total than the other districts.

So we are heavily surveilled.

We but they know what's going on.

Um, so thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

As you heard earlier, the data clearly show SOMA continues to have high crime and long response times compared to the rest of the data.

Uh, uh the rest of the city.

That's a fact.

I live on Tahama Street, just off 6th.

This was once a quiet residential block.

Today there are people doing drugs and passed out, public defecation, people wielding knives, and shouting ramblings of the mentally disturbed.

This is fueled by the morning ritual of SFPD pushing the hundreds of drug addicts from market and 6th Street into Soma, leaving residents to deal with the consequences.

In the hours it takes for police to respond to our calls, the incident is over, the damage is done, and the perpetrators continue their criminal trajectory in SOMA.

To make matters worse, the police commission has defied all data-driven logic by deciding to further burden one of its worst performing stations by adding the market to mission strip, which is known for its high police call volume.

So, as bad as it is, it will get worse unless Southern Station is fully staffed.

This unequal level of public safety reinforces the HCD complaint filed against the city for having policies that intentionally treat SOMA as a containment zone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

And so too, we have a mid-market community benefit district.

As you know, Southern Station remains the most understaffed station in San Francisco.

This disparity is especially concerning given the unique challenges facing the district.

Southern Station covers a large geographic area with a high concentration of social service facilities and dense commercial activity.

The district is home to numerous supportive housing sites and substance abuse treatment programs, but serve communities city-wide.

Until stronger citywide solutions are in place, SFPD officer will continue carrying much of a responsibility for addressing the impact these issues have on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.

Southern Station also faces some of the City's most persistent public safety concerns.

The district includes several areas struggling with open air drug activity, illegal vending, retail theft, environment crime, including the area surrounding 6th Street and nearby alleyways.

We strongly support all efforts to increase staffing levels at Southern Station.

Expanding resources in the district will improve public safety, strengthened neighborhood conditions, and help bring staffing levels more in line with our FPD stations across the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, supervisors.

I'm Scott Rowitz.

I'm the executive director for the Yerba Buena Partnership, the community benefit district in District 6 between 2nd and 5th and market and the highway.

And thank you for this hearing today, and thank you for the police and their reports and chief and the feedback, etc.

I just want to acknowledge, I think, first of all, the district alignment boundaries makes sense.

This is right.

This is the right direction.

Cleaning up the market mission line is vital.

It does create this additional change and additional complexity on top of already challenging situations.

So the doubling down and what the police are talking about about increasing staffing is stage one.

We need to triple down.

I think what we're hearing today is correct.

We need more staffing in Southern.

It's only going to get worse.

We were not at baseline where we needed to.

So appreciate the doubling down.

Now triple down.

And I want to use sort of everything about equity and all that is right.

Southern needs the support.

Southern does.

But I want to talk about the economic driver of San Francisco, which is Chase Center, Convention Center, and what's happening down in Southern connected to all the other activities that are in Southern.

If we don't invest in Southern as a city and in the district as a whole, and it's everything in SOMA connected.

It really is the drivers of the economics, which is the lifeblood of the city will dramatically affect the general fund and what happens across the board.

So investing and supporting SFPD to go further deeper, triple down on staffing in Southern, and everything is not equal.

Invest there now.

Now's the moment.

We have we're on recovery.

Let's keep going.

This is the moment to really double down on Southern, triple down, and make it strong.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Yeah, Sean Auckland again.

Before my comments were for the neighborhood, I want to share a brief personal comment.

I live within the LGBT Leather and Cultural District.

And over the last six months, there's been no greater time in my entire life as a gay adult that I have been called anti-gay hate slurs on my own streets.

According to city data, SOMA accounts for 11% of all reported hate crimes, despite having less than 3% of the city's population.

And according to that same public data, zero.

None of them are solved.

Last month, a man threatened my partner and I, my partner's here in the audience.

He taunted us while we were on the phone with dispatch asking for help.

He said to us, go ahead, call anyone you want.

Unfortunately, he was right.

When the police arrived much much later, they simply said, Well, Mr.

Auckland, he's gone now.

What do you want us to do?

Importantly, they did not ask what direction he went, they did not ask his description, they did not ask if I took a photo of him or a video, and yes, I had, and I said back, your job.

You allow officers to choose their districts, you allow a culture where officers avoid the hardest neighborhoods.

Your officers know that Soma hosts 30% of the city's beds while having homeless uh supportive shelter beds while having only 3% of the population, and your system allows them to opt out of protecting us.

You allow public safety to be a vacation for officers who want to rest, as I said, while queer residents like me are left to fend for themselves against hate crimes and act of violence every day.

Adding a handful of officers for a man of massive boundary expansion is an insult.

The problem in Southern Station is actually not just a lack of resources, it is a profound lack of institutional courage.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Colleen McCarthy.

I'm a social worker.

I've worked at Sanctuary Shelter on Ethan Howard and also at the Marie X Martinez Clinic on Stevenson.

And I think I want to, you know, support what Lucas has said because I've heard a lot of people almost getting it here when they've said we need a homeless specialist.

I've worked my whole social work life working with people who are unhoused.

We need a different resource to support these people.

And we know that the social services are radically being defunded.

I just got my MSW.

I am not looking for a social work job in San Francisco because there aren't any anymore.

I'm gonna work in San Mateo or Santa Clara or Alameda.

And so I think we're looking at all of this data here, and we're saying, look at what's happening.

We know social services are gonna be defunded on top of that.

I have worked in this district all the time.

I live two blocks or three blocks from the Chase Center, and we're just saying we just need to get all of these more police officers, and that's gonna solve the problem.

You can get all you want with defunding of the rest of the social services, it's gonna continue to get worse.

So I hope everyone who is here will also support and come and speak out for these social services, because I know these people you're talking about.

I probably know the person that made this hate speech and could have helped you find that person and address what the situation is because I work and know all of these people here.

So I think this is not a situation as we are as social workers are taught to think from an ecosystem perspective that can be solved in one way, and so I hope you all show up to get more social services for people like me who bring these people and bring them and help them get care, help them be, you know, find ways into recovery, help them understand where they're at.

I don't see you there because I am at those.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Um thanks.

Um, my personal comment is well.

I've lived in the city for 26 years, 20 of those years were on Lower Knob Hill in District 3 on Bush Street.

I walked through the tenderloin every day to go to work in Civic Center.

I know what it's like in the tenderloin, and I know what it's like in other neighborhoods.

When I moved to Soma West, I have never been this afraid and this worried for my safety as I was in other places in this city.

And I say that not in relation to this being a fight between social services and police response, um, where we have some folks speaking today about that.

Um, when shelter in place hotels were put across the street from my building, we welcomed that at the time because we understood that COVID was a priority and needed to happen, and we were wanting to work with those services.

They did not want to work with us.

That's the reality.

They told us to call the police.

If the drug dealer outside of our lobby, outside of their lobby, was causing problems and selling drugs that they were not responsible, even though it was their clients that were being targeted.

So this is not a fight over social services versus the police.

This is about recognizing that many of these programs are well intentioned and do good work, but the clients and the staff within them do not feel safe, and the neighborhoods surrounding them do not feel safe.

And so for those supervisors who are not district six, all of this fuzzy math going into budgeting around homeless shelters and social services also impacts SAP.

Next speaker.

Hi, good morning.

Jennifer Freedom Mock Coalition on Homelessness.

Um I just wanted to kind of make some connections here because having spent many years working with the police department on a number of different policies.

Um, one of the things that we worked on is did really deep dives into the response calls, into kind of thinking about how the approach could be different.

And I just want to point out, um, so on the priority B calls, um, you know, that involves some level of violence, um, some kind of urgency, and the response time on that is directly impacted by having police tasked with responding to things that maybe they're not the most appropriate ones to respond to.

And so there is a direct connection there around public safety.

So we had done a lot of work working with the police chief at the time, with the police commission, with um a whole bunch of researchers and sociologists, and um did this process called CART, where we looked at um uh alternative programs, alternatives to policing across the entire planet, actually, really deep dives, and came up with uh recommendations on how to address this in a way that would be more effective.

Um, because of course the police don't um aren't able to address some of these socioeconomic issues that they're tasked with.

That's not their training, they're highly trained in weapons, they're highly trained in a number of different areas, um they cost with benefits about a quarter of a million each.

Um, and when they're spread too thin, this is the result.

And so I just want to really urge the Western uh Soma neighbors to look at that and to really kind of think about that interface there because that is a great way uh to address public safety um in a more positive outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I my name is Mateo, I'm of D9.

I believe police are important, however, they are not the one all be solution.

This city has budgeted towards police with many of them going into overtime pay, and we're still seeing the same problem.

We're seeing response times taking uh forever for folks, and which people leave the scene of the crime because they are dealing with homeless encampments that neighbors are just annoyed by seeing.

I don't believe that we should target those issues.

There is actual like violence, there is like danger.

Police are meant for those cases.

They're not meant to uh delegate and uh uh give citations out to folks that are homeless simply for existing.

I know Grant Pass gives permission for that, but it doesn't mean it's right or moral for San Francisco to follow in that footstep.

I think that cutting every other service except the police and our prosecutor's office uh simply lays out a format in which we expect people to just go in jail and then eventually come back out with less opportunities, less resources, and no real means to actually curb the real problem, and that's lifting people up rather than putting people down.

I thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, good morning, this is supervisors.

My name is Miguel Carrera.

I work in the coalition of homelessness.

So um, so I don't want to say I'm opposed to what you're trying to do to provide more police officers to Syrian people.

I think it's not really a good idea.

One of the reasons why I say that is because uh to bring in more police officers is not a solution to sweeping people pushing from Tenderloin to South Sudan or to the mission or to Bayview to everywhere and bring him back again.

So every time you do sweeps and trying to verify one expert in the city, so we create more problems because we're not bringing money.

We don't bring anything, we don't create shelters, we don't create housing, we don't do anything to solve in this problem.

So the only thing we're doing is pushing people from one place to other place.

This is not a solution.

We have to create housing.

We have to create a real programs to support these folks to to be stable.

So if we don't do this type of work, we if we don't work in together, we cannot solve in this problem.

So the problem they can be solving when we collectively working together with you guys and directly with the people who the people who is a fit, the people who living outside.

We need the voices from the people to telling us how we would like to create a program that can work for you.

They can work for me.

How we can create housing, housing to support you, and the best way you can solve in your situation, your problems, but because we don't do it.

This is the reason we create this instability to poor people in homelessness, and we displaced from one place to other place and not finding solutions.

We need to work in real solutions.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Jordan Vosheleski.

I actually live in the uh tender line, which is right above uh, I'm a couple blocks away from the uh southern precinct.

Anyway, I wanna echo what several public commenters have said, like Lucas and Leah, that police don't always keep us safe and that we need to invest in more programs to create public safety, so that way we don't need the police, and I'm just like really angry that there's in the times of budget crisis, there's all these cuts happening.

I also want to point out that I'm myself am also a victim of uh of police uh response time issues.

A couple weeks ago I had a package stolen surprisingly by the person who was supposed to be delivering my package and my building, and thankfully they got s their security cameras and the uh footage was caught, and my uh building manager in my permanent support of housing building caught it.

And then of course, uh I called the police that morning.

It takes five hours and they had to send sheriffs because tenderloin station was so backlogged.

I guess they were trying to clear out encampments and busting low-level drug use that we almost didn't get to be able to like uh come.

The police were not able to come uh until like three o'clock when uh the building manager was uh about to go off for the weekend, and then they uh, so that would thankfully we're able to get the video footage and now it's like going through the thing, but just yeah, I'm just saying like police don't keep us safe, and like with all the money you're throwing to police, it's not gonna cause any more uh it's not gonna keep us safe, it's not gonna prevent shit for like this from happening.

So just you know, fuck this shit, like uh police are just defunding themselves.

I yield my time.

Fuck you.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Sarah Bertram.

I spoke earlier.

I wanted to make um just a brief public comment.

In addition to serving as on the neighborhood association board, I also serve as the vice chair of the Mission Bay Transportation Improvement Fund Advisory Committee.

And I just wanted to, in light of all of the conversation about um resource constraints, flag for Chief Lou um the opportunity that we have over the next couple of days to make sure that the Mission Bay Transportation Improvement Fund is funded in the mayor's budget, which I expect to come out, I think on Monday.

Um that budget um was fully supported by the advisory committee.

It includes 2.6 million dollars for funding for um police to provide services around events at Chase.

And here's what the mayor's office said when the mayor's office advocated to create the Mission Bay Transportation Improvement Fund.

They said, among other things, um it is our intention to fully fund all of the services through this fund for the arena in a way that does not deprive service elsewhere in the city.

It's very important that we have enough parking control officers, that we have enough rolling stock, that we have enough drivers and foot patrol officers to serve the site without shortlining any other routes or bringing people off of their existing beats.

So I would just flag, I would hope to have your support in um seeking to have the transportation improvement funded through the mayor's budget to alleviate your staffing challenges.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, Bettina Cohen.

Um and I wasn't going to add an additional comment until I heard what Sarah was saying, and that fund that is um, you know, the request to the mayor's budget office, that really needs to be funded.

This is this is how I mean, when I'm talking earlier about dual events taking place, um, and one of them being at Chase Center, um, you know, that those services are very important that we have greater um police service those nights, um, that anything is taking place at the Chase Center.

Um, and it's even more so when we have events also happening at Oracle Park on the same night.

So please, um, yeah, whatever support that request by that advisory committee, the Mission Bay Transportation Improvement Fund, um, for those services to be funded.

Um, it would really be criminal if that they weren't.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bettina.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Um, and seeing no one on the roster with further questions or comments, I want to thank everyone for participating in today's um hearing.

I think what we heard today underscores that police staffing is a top priority for uh me as well as my um constituents in district six and in the southern police district.

Um response times in particular are viewed as unacceptable.

I think it's clear that there is also a need um to really rebuild relationships between police and neighbors in Southern, and that is something that I've spoken with Captain Hurley about.

I would add that it's especially true for vulnerable communities, including the LGBTQ plus community that I'm a part of.

And um, and um there was one reference to hate crime um issues that come up that we're seeing with increasing frequency that we do will have legislation that um is working its way through um the process right now to create a hate crime war reward fund that will hopefully uh help the police to um identify and prosecute perpetrators of hate crimes moving forward.

Um, I want to be sensitive to the awkward reality that at least one commenter mentioned that it uh that our district may be asking for resources from other districts, and I hope that that is not uh, you know, the the way that this really plays out.

I think while it may seem that we're advocating for a larger slice of pie, and in some respects we are, um, I think we all agree that uh really the big the the right solution is a bigger pie, a fully staffed police department, and I want to acknowledge two allies on that in Vice Chair Sauter and Supervisor Wong, who have been strong public safety allies for a public fully staffed police department.

So hopefully we won't have to be taking from one another's um districts.

There's more work to do.

I want to thank everyone uh from SFPD, Chief Lou, Chief Biggs, Mr.

Cunningham, Mr.

Nasita, and our community presenters, Ms.

Um Bertram, Ms.

Cohen, Mr.

Isbell, and Mr.

Auckland, and to everyone who offered public commentary.

I look forward to continued conversations with the department and with the community.

And with that, I would like to move to file this hearing.

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

Yes, and on the motion that this item be heard and filed.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye, Fleischer Sauter.

Aye.

Fleischer Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey.

I.

Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And the hearing is filed.

Madam Clerk, can we please call the next item?

Yes, the item number two is an ordinance amending 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 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 is drug-free PSH would conflict with standards imposed by law or by a condition of other funding, or the Board of Supervisors has waived the funding prohibition based on specific findings and require the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing to survey residents of the site-based PSH to access their interest in living in either drug-tolerant PSH or drug-free PSH and report on the survey findings and HSH's strategies to meet PSH residents' demands.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, colleagues.

We heard this item a few weeks ago, and although we have uh six co-sponsors and presumably the votes to get it enacted without further amendments.

I think I speak for most of my co-sponsors when I said that we all thought it was important to demonstrate an abundance of collaboration to those who are voicing concerns and to give one more opportunity to work with advocates to address areas where there was still opportunity for common ground.

Since sending it back to committee, I have been working with advocates and the mayor's office on amendments to address concerns about how evictions would be handled in drug-free permanent supportive housing.

The amendments that I would like to propose today provide more direction to departments on how to support tenants who face evictions from drug-free permanent supportive housing.

Additionally, I would like to narrow the scope of the funding requirement to not apply to new construction.

Historically, that hasn't we have never that has never been an issue with permanent supportive housing, but just out of concerns that we don't want to stop any housing production, that was an amendment that we thought was easy to accommodate.

So we have an explicit carve out for new construction from this.

For transparency, I will read the new amendments regarding evictions on page nine under section 12K six subsection B, we'll read B establish agency protocols for providing support to residents facing eviction from drug-free housing for illicit drug use by one, ensuring that such residents may continue to access case management and supportive services appropriate to their needs and housing stability, including but not limited to housing retention, money management, and benefits enrollment support, semicolon, and two, offering such residents appropriate alternative housing, shelter placement, or a pathway to housing prior to program discharge or eviction, semicolon, and three, in collaboration with DPH, the Department of Public Health, making a good faith effort to accommodate such residents' housing and service needs when identifying alternative placements with the goal of avoiding returns to homelessness.

I hope these amendments provide some more clarity to departments and emphasize the importance of preventing returns to homelessness.

This is not the only opportunity for feedback on this process.

The legislation still spells out a rulemaking process, and I intend for that to be a collaborative one.

This language established the core principles, the guardrails in effect for that rule making.

Seeing no one.

Oh, Vice Chair Sauter.

Uh thank you, Chair Dorsey.

Just briefly, um, thank you for your work on these amendments.

I know you have been working with a lot of stakeholders and have put in a lot of hours, and I do think this is an improved piece of legislation.

Um, it is absolutely true and clear that permanent supportive housing is important and it's valuable.

Uh and also we need more choices, and we need drug-free permanent supportive housing.

So I will continue to support this, and again, thank you uh for your work to improve this.

Great.

Thank you.

But Chair Sauter.

Um, seeing no one else on the roster with uh uh comments or questions.

Let's uh, Madam Clerk, may we open this up to 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 two minutes.

First speaker.

Um my name is Maxine Jones, and I sit on the homeless border committee here at uh City Hall, and I just have maybe it's me.

I'm wondering uh, did you say that?

Um this is about people that's on drugs, right?

And if they're on drugs, they should be evicted, or if they relapse on drugs, they should be evicted.

Did I get that right?

No one want to answer.

Well, my thing is this we have enough homeless people, right?

So I don't think that that should be the case where people should be evicted because of that.

I think you need to find another solution to that.

That's like someone sitting up smoking marijuana and they say, Oh, I'm gonna come up with a legislation today.

I'm gonna evict the people that's deaths on drugs, and then I'm gonna the ones that relapse, I'm gonna evict them too.

No, we need to find out a solution of helping these people because they're sick, it's a sickness.

Drug drugs are a sickness.

We need to work on that, not evicting people from their homes because they use drugs.

If they're paying their rent, if they're capable of paying rent, they should be capable of living there.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name's Leah McGeever.

I just, it's hard for me to understand how any of this type of legislation can be in good faith when you don't begin your legislative process policy making by working with these advocates, these harm reduction advocates, these people advocating for homeless people so they don't become homeless again on the streets.

You don't begin with that.

What you try to do is ram in the worst version of your legislation as possible, and then whatever is left over at the end of all the fighting over your legislation, that is what gets usually passed, because you have these other supervisors here sitting next to you, the moderate Democrats, the people who are supporting the billionaires, the foot, fascist foot soldiers of the billionaires, actually, they tell you what to do, and then you enact the fascism through these policies.

So I just can't take anything you propose in good faith until you begin by working with advocates, by doctors, by professionals, by people who have relationships with these people who are suffering.

Your legislation is always at the exclusion of these people.

You focus on trying to enact some sort of moral hierarchy where abstinence only people deserve the best, and if you fuck up in in your world view here, uh you deserve punishment, which I don't believe in punishing people.

Well, especially with substance use disorder.

You know, and I know personally, runs in my family, that it's not something we can necessarily control, that certain conditions in our environments and support we have is what allows us to be productive, caring members of society.

I wish you would remember that and put that into your legislation.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, Jennifer Friedenbach from the Coalition on Homelessness.

The legislation before you is intending to create sober permanent housing.

We at the Coalition on Homelessness don't oppose the concept, and in fact, have fought successfully for it over the years.

But there are some amendments that are still needed.

If sober housing comes to fruition, it will include people in recovery.

A substance use disorder is a chronic disease.

People will return to use.

Why not allow the individual to go to a program and return to housing like any other medical condition?

Why ban funding for other forms of housing?

Why not?

What about mental health funds?

What about uh backing up lost federal fundings?

It's an easy fix, make sober housing a priority.

Look, I have decades of working on policy with dozens of legislators from a myriad of different political background.

I've seen really good policy coming only, only from true collaboration.

And in this case, we pulled together addiction specialists who pointed out what the disease model looks like and what would work.

We pulled together supportive housing providers that brought together the operational issues.

We pulled together tenants who said, I'm not gonna move into I want sober housing, but I'm not gonna move into it if it evicts me for drug use.

So we did not have what I would call a truly collaborative process.

Um we had we did not get shared amendments, we did not have a back and forth discussion, um, we were not able to problem solve and come together.

That is the democratic process that works best.

That's where the magic happens.

I would like you to accept the amendments that Melgar's office already has approved a form through the city attorney, that would solve some of this stuff and make your idea supervisor Dorsey even better.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, thank you for the chance to speak again on this.

Um, as you know, I said I am an MSW, I'm a social worker, worked at Maria X Martinez, and also at um sanctuary shelter.

I also worked in support of housing at the Granada and at the Restore program that is part of DPH.

I work very deeply with people with substance use who want to get in recovery.

And I just want to point out there's an article written by McKinsey a couple years ago that was written by someone named Kunal Modi and Ufern Pan, people I think we know, and then Alexis Krivkovich, who is actually one of my classmates from when I got my MBA at Stanford.

Um, and what it says is what's really important is that we focus on case management.

Case management is super important.

So, you know, I think the um when you're speaking about oh, these clients won't be excerpted from using case management if they um relapse.

But the key is having worked in all of these places that when you um uh weaponize relapses as part of this, when you say you're gonna get evicted, you're gonna have to move because you've relapsed, um, people are not gonna work with their case managers.

They're not gonna engage with them, they're not gonna work with anyone from the city because they want the least amount of interaction with them as possible, because they know these people have the ability to evict them.

Any little thing that they do in their recovery process, which is not completely sober.

When they're there, they're gonna say, I don't wanna be around them because I don't want them to think that I'm high, think that something's going on that I've relapsed.

So I'm just not gonna work with them at all because that's too dangerous because I can't lose my housing because I am so traumatized from when I was homeless.

So operationally, this um, these eviction, um, these very vague um help with eviction is not going to be.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Chelsea Kaplan, and I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission's Equity Advisory Housing Subcommittee.

Um, and we welcome the conversation that drug-free permanent supportive housing ordinance invites around housing choice and the importance of meeting residents where they are.

After all, PSH residents have varying needs, and we need housing models that reflect that diversity.

Offering residents genuine options about where and how they live is itself a trauma-informed practice that centers agency dignity and opportunity or and the opportunities people need to begin the lifelong recovery journey.

Our serious concerns with this proposed ordinance include, as written, the ordinance would not lead to increased increased sobriety, but to increased homelessness and drug use amongst an already marginalized population.

Specifically, we believe that the ordinance would disproportionately impact impact black and Latinx residents and individuals living with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders who already are disproportionately represented in California's homeless population.

It would penalize more than a single relapse when data and addiction science is clear that recovery is rarely linear and involves an average of five relapses.

And it would place tenants who are already struggling with recovery back on the streets, which is exactly where data shows that people frequently begin using substances as a response to the acute trauma, stress, and danger of living.

So, what we are asking is um to avoid the unnecessary harm, we urge supervisors to engage in a comprehensive, carefully designed survey conducted by an independent third party research or a third party research partner before amending the proposed legislation so you can really know what are the varying needs of San Francisco's PSH population and how can you actually create ordinances that support that.

So please please consider that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, Supervisor Wong, Clerk Creighton.

I'm Sarah Sang.

I'm the policy director for the city's Office of Racial Equity.

We're a team within the Human Rights Commission.

We are required by local ordinance to provide an objective analysis to you as you consider pending ordinances.

Um we have conducted an initial analysis about the racial equity impacts of this ordinance.

Um I realize it's coming quite late in the process, which must be very frustrating given, you know, the two years of conversation you've had about this.

Um, but I do want to highlight that our analysis and our recommended amendments are based on really deep concern from city staff that we've spoken to across all the relevant departments.

Um never in my time working on policy issues in the US and Canada have I seen such a significant level of concern at every level from frontline staff, from senior managers, deputy directors, even department heads.

Um, those concerns, even with the new amendments, um, which I think are definitely a step forward, as you've mentioned, Supervisor Sauter, there still continues to be this level of concern.

But given where we are right now in the budget process, um, our fear as the Office of Racial Equity is that you are not receiving the best technical analysis to make this and make a decision.

Um I'm going to pass it to my colleague Zach Manuel behind me to talk more about the analysis and recommendations, which we also have paper copies of.

Thank you for your comments.

I'm going to restart your time.

You'll be commenting separately.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Sarah.

My name is Zach Manuel.

I'm a community development specialist within the Office of Racial Equity.

The handout you're receiving lists six different recommendations, without which I'll go through now.

Ideally, the legislation should separate the resident survey from the broader public change.

This puts the cart before the horse before restructuring permanent supportive housing citywide.

The city should first assess resident needs, provider capacity, and recovering housing demand through a neutral third party process before putting forth this change.

Second, the framing of the housing models matters.

Drug-free permanent supportive housing should instead be described as recovery focused permanent supportive housing, emphasizing support and recovery rather than exclusion.

Likewise, drug-tolerant housing should be renamed standard or low barrier permanent supportive housing, which more accurately reflects housing first aligned models and avoid stigmatizing residents.

Third, the ordinance should clarify that the city's goal is to expand housing options overall.

Supervisor Sauter, I like what you said in terms of accessibility, including different service models, locations, and support types in ways that promote long-term housing stability and reduce returns to homelessness.

The legislation should also preserve the city's ability to fund both recovery focused and standard permanent supportive housing models.

As currently written, the ordinance risks limiting access to evidence-based housing first approaches that have worked and that thousands of residents currently rely on for stability.

The resident survey itself should also be broadened.

In addition to housing model preferences, it should examine recovery goals, neighborhood preferences, support needs and barriers to long-term housing retention.

A parallel assessment of housing providers and subject matter experts would also help the city better understand the issue and implementation challenges and operational impacts.

And finally, any future housing model should include strong evaluation measures around housing retention, health outcomes, resident satisfaction, and political.

Thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Shakima Schraker.

I'm an organizer at the Coalition on Homelessness and a recent Master of Social Work graduate from Temple University.

When people hear social work, they often picture therapy or direct practice, but my focus is much different.

I work at the intersection of policy and research.

The space between the laws that govern us and the real lived impact those laws have on our daily lives.

That gap is where harm quietly accumulates.

And it's our most vulnerable communities that observe the most damage when policy fails.

That's why I'm here today asking you to amend to create a pilot program for this model without restricting funding for current PSH models.

Piloting is the responsible path.

It creates the opportunity to test, observe, and course correct before harm becomes entrenched.

Build in meaningful monitoring and evaluation right from the start, not as an afterthought.

Show that you are committed to ensuring that the people most affected by this program will not be forgotten, and that when something isn't working, we will fix it.

Just like recovery, which I know from personal experience, policy is a bumpy road and it's not linear, and the people this program is designed to serve have already been failed too too many times by systems that move too fast without looking back.

I urge you to move forward with care and accountability, and with our most vulnerable San Francisco residents at the center of your decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good fucking afternoon.

My name is Jordan Voshelevsky, and my pronouns are she he her.

I spent the last decade advocating for tenants like us and for solutions that are broadly popular among permanent supportive housing tenants.

I've won some campaigns, lost some campaigns.

They'll all never acknowledge that.

But this is not one of them.

The city could do recovery housing and drug-free housing without this bullshit legislation.

You could also have worked with tenants and frontline workers to create an actual balanced eviction policy that ensures the just transition to low barrier housing.

But that showed that Dorothy wants to push his own fucking agenda.

He's drifted beyond compromise and wants to give way to the anti-trans salvation army.

Lastly, I just want to say that a couple years ago I was talking with tenants about a permanent supportive housing tenants' bill of rights.

We're like some of the most underrepresented people out there.

We are like the victims of conflicts of interests that just it's just too complicated to explain.

And we talked about like harm reduction and being able to uh have sober housing and recovery housing in a uh as uh to coexist with uh new uh barrier PSH.

We talked about eviction protections, we led on uh hearings around eviction issues, both at the Board of Supervisors and uh HOC generally and some of these uh ideas are basically ideas that would make our lives a lot better and maybe prevent us from having to do drugs to cope with living in some of these uh shitholes.

And I'm just I'm tired right now.

I didn't want to have to go jersey on your asses again, but here we are.

You are a disgrace.

I yield my time.

Fuck you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Mateo, and I'm a resident of D9.

I work at hospitality house where we work with homeless community members who became homeless due to lack of support by the city, including many veterans.

Many of them are trying to get into housing, meet all the requirements, and are put on wait lists for years.

Instead of solving that issue, the board of soups works to solve a non-existent problem no one asks for by requiring all social housing, be sober housing, evicting people for drug use.

Sober housing is important, having options for people is great.

Many of the speakers here will agree with that, but you strip them of that and keep to a standard that the author of this measure said that in the same circumstance they wouldn't be able to uphold the measure themselves and would face eviction.

If they can't keep to it, why do we expect everyone else to follow that same standard?

Have guardrails to protect folks from facing eviction so we don't have any more homelessness.

These amendments don't stop evictions.

This legislation asks residents to hide their drug use problems so they have a place to live.

This doesn't help us at hospitality house, who work to connect people to the services and help them face their issues when their home is not accepting of their recovery and punishes them for it.

Why do you give people no choice on housing choice in this situation?

Hospitality House and other nonprofits are working around the clock with homeless folks and doing our best to support them.

But how can we do that if we have a government that wants to increase homelessness rather than decrease it?

Please see reason and vote against this measure as is and change it to show that you care.

Please.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Nigel Carrera again, so I work in the coalition on homelessness.

Um I opposing on this legislation because uh this legislation is not really to helping and support poor and homeless people or formerly homeless people.

And I want to tell you because I've been working more than 30 years in the coalition on homelessness.

I've been trying to move in hundreds and hundreds of people to permanent housing.

And I've been working with these folks for over 30, 40 years, and I still be connecting with these folks, they are still in housing.

They're still in recovery because trauma they'll never go away.

Because issues when we become homeless, when we are outside, we suffer so much, so of course we have a traumas, so we're working on these issues.

So when you create an analysis to go into a victim people, you create more instability.

You create more difficult for someone who is going out, get out from the housing, and then when you're trying to bring him back to housing, that kind of thing is a problem because they take more time to bring him back, and probably if you pass this legislation, the people they can never get back to housing.

It's the reason we opposing and we don't have sex in this legislation.

So if you want to create something more positive, so we need to work in like I say earlier together, no alone side like are you doing this legislation without communicating without without communicate with the people.

You need to go to the people and talk to the people who live in this housing and getting these ideas and recommendations, how they can work this housing, how they can be in recovery for many years.

You have to ask in these questions to the people who it's already existing and living in housing.

Don't have victim people, please, and stop creating legislation to oppress people and and displays.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, supervisors.

Um Lucas from the coalition on Homelessness and District nine resident.

Um, you know, this.

I I want, I'm fully supportive of sober housing existing.

I just I think this legislation presumes treatment is available and is being offered.

There is an ability, it's written into our federal HUD guidelines for folks to leave their housing temporarily for up to 180 days for treatment.

You know, Supervisor Dorsey and you know, committee members, all of you are big supporters of folks getting into treatment.

I don't quite understand why that is not being granted as an option.

Um I do believe that the eviction protections um are not strong enough.

The option to go from housing, you know, getting folks into PSH is hard work, like Miguel said, and for the option to have them fall back into shelter is reductive.

Um I do believe that we also should consider the cost of eviction defense, the eviction defense collaborative.

The city funds both the eviction attorneys for, you know, evicting folks from PSH as well as the attorneys defending folks from eviction.

And so that is not only a long process, it's a costly process for the city.

This bill does not include this legislation does not include any additional funding for that.

Um, and again, we should be connecting folks with the option for treatment.

There is there's nothing that you know exists in this legislation currently that offers that for folks.

And I think that, you know, what I appreciate about your comments, Chair Dorsey is that you know, recovery is a long process, it is an accountable one, but there needs to be resources available, made available to folks for that recovery to be made possible.

And treatment having a treatment plan for folks that slip up is fundamental.

Please put that in.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, speakers.

Uh, my name is Cody Keene, and I'm here on behalf of the supportive housing provider network.

Um, I wanted to uh express uh encouragement around the uh amendments that were proposed, but we do still have concerns around uh the shelter component of it.

Um our shelter system is already under a lot of strain, and if we are going to remove people from these programs, it would be uh more ideal for them to have a landing space that's more permanent.

But uh we would absolutely be open to talking and collaborating more around this, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers for this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I want to thank everyone who um came to offer public comment.

Um, and I also want to express my appreciation to uh my co-sponsors and in particular um board president Rafael Mandelman, who was the original partner uh with me on this when we started working on the process um two years ago through many iterations, many meetings, and much collaboration, um, including those uh, frankly, who are now claiming that the prog prog process has not been collaborative.

Um that isn't true.

I think we have done everything we can to be as collaborative as possible.

What's also false is the persistent misrepresentation that this legislation is about sober permanent supportive housing.

Although I will acknowledge that um previous iterations of the legislation did have uh recovery oriented options.

This legislation hasn't been that for close to a year.

Um this is drug-free supportive housing.

It only applies to the on-site use of illicit drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine.

Legal intoxicants like alcohol and legally acquired marijuana are allowed.

There is no expectation or requirement that residents of drug-free permanent supportive housing will have to have substance use disorders or a diagnosis or be in recovery.

It is entirely about residential choice that I believe the residents of permanent supportive housing in San Francisco deserve.

Importantly, the legal model for this is the two hundred and forty thousand standard residential leases in San Francisco, for which the use of illicit drugs on site is already grounds for eviction and has been for years.

This is a standard provision in California leases.

Illicit drug use on site can be grounds for eviction.

There is a mature, well-developed legal process for how landlords and courts handle evictions in these circumstances when it impinges on the rights of the community and the um quiet enjoyment standard for other residents.

Only for permanent supportive housing residents in California.

Do we require 100% of residents to live in explicitly drug tolerant settings?

This is about making sure that people in permanent supportive housing have an option of choosing a drug-free option if that's what they want.

And this legislation will enable us to get there.

The other thing I would just add is that it has been endorsed by some of the leading addiction medicine experts in this country, including Keith Humphreys, who is the professor of psychiatry at Stanford.

He is a nationally recognized addiction medicine expert who served as President Obama's White House Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Likewise, Anna Lemke, who is a best-selling author of Drug Dealer MD and uh Dopamine Nation.

She is the medical director of addiction medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine.

She also serves as the professor and program director for the Stanford Addiction Medicine Fellowship.

Um Dr.

Lemke has said that she believes it is simple common sense that people would want to live in a place where illicit drug use is prohibited, especially women and families with young children, whether or not they're in recovery.

Um I really appreciate the um the collaboration.

Obviously, you know, we we have meetings every every Tuesday, and people we are people can continue to collaborate and legislate on these issues.

The drug policy issue and discussion isn't going away anytime soon.

So I want to appreciate my co-sponsors and everybody who has spoken and everybody who uh will continue to work on this.

Seeing no one on the roster with further questions or comments, I'd like to make a motion to adopt these amendments that were circulated in red.

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

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as they were presented or read into the record by Chair Dorsey.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vic Chair Sauter, Visher Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey, Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And as these amendments are substantive, I would like to now make a motion to continue the item as amended.

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

Yes, and on the motion to continue this item as amended.

Member Wong, Member Wong, I, Vice Chair Dorsey, excuse me, Vice Chair Slaughter, Vice Chair Slaughter, I, Chair Dorsey, Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion uh passes.

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

Yes, item number three is a hearing to consider that the person-to-person premise to premise transfer of a type 48 on sale general, public premises, beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to Azabot LLC doing businesses.

Indy Darling, located at 537 Stevenson Street in District 6, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

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

Um, Officer Erickson, thank you for your uh patience.

Uh welcome to the committee.

The floor is yours.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for having me.

You have before you a PCN report for Ozaba operating as Indy Darling.

They have applied for a type 48 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate in on sale general public premise at 537 Stevenson Street.

There is one letter of protest, zero letters of support.

They are located in plat 208, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in census track 176.04, which is considered a low concentration area.

Tenderloin station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation approval with the following conditions.

Condition number 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 any limitation on hours during which entertainment or amplified sound is permitted.

A violation of the entertainment or amplified sound noise conditions 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 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 the ABC Forum 257.

Condition 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 Forum 257.

Lastly, condition four, between the hours of 5 p.m.

and 2 a.m.

or at any time the premise premises are providing live entertainment.

The petitioner shall provide two uniformed security guards in the parking lot and or premise and shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by nearby residents or the surrounding community.

The licensed uniform security guards must be licensed by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

And I know this uh establishment is located in the heart of District 6, the district I represent uh in the South of Market neighborhood.

I haven't had the chance to visit Indy Darling yet, but I certainly applaud their vision.

I believe there's value in bringing more spaces like this to Soma, places that help activate our commercial corridors and contribute to nightlife and economic vitality.

Um Madam Clerk, are there representatives of the applicant present?

Um not that I not that I know of.

Um well, seeing no one on the roster with uh questions or comments, may I Madam Clerk may we open this item up to 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 two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment for this item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And seeing no one on the roster with further questions or comments, I would like to move to the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 48 limited on-sale general public premises beer wine and distilled spirits liquor license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

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

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

Member Wong.

Member Wong, I, Vice Chair Sauder, Vice Chair Soder, aye, Chair Dorsey, Chair Dorsey.

I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Congratulations to the applicant.

The motion passes.

And Madam Clerk, may we call the next item?

Yes, item number four is a hearing to consider that the person to person premise to premise transfer of a type 21 off-sale beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to Harlan Records, LLC, doing businesses, Harlan Records, located at 447 Bush Street, and slash, excuse me, 18 Harlan Place in District 3 will serve the public convenience on necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

I want to welcome back Officer Erickson from the SFP Disley is on unit to the ABC.

Floor is yours.

Thank you.

You have before you a PCN report for Harlan Records LLC operating as Harlan Records.

They have applied for a type 21 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate in off-sale general liquor store at 447 Bush Street and 18 Harlan Place.

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

They are located in Plot 160, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in Census Tract 117.00, which is considered a high concentration area.

Central Station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation, approval with the following conditions.

Condition one, 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 premises as depicted on the ABC form 257.

And lastly, condition two, the petitioners shall be re responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

Um I really appreciate that.

It has the support of uh Vice Chair Sauter.

So is Vice Chair Sauter, do you have anything you'd like to add?

Uh thank you, Chair Dorsey.

Um look I'm supportive of this and look forward to it.

Uh I think this is a it's a really unique spot uh in Union Square, and I think this will be an important part of its future success.

So I'd be happy to make that motion after public comment.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sauter.

Uh Madam Clerk, are there representatives of the applicant present?

Uh not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

Well, seeing then no one on the roster, no one present.

Um, are there why don't we uh invite a 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.

It appears we have no public comment for this item.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Yes, I would like to uh move to request the clerk prepare a resolution to make the determination that the issuance of a type 21 off-sale general beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity and forward that to the full board with our positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call on that?

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

Um member Wong.

Member Wong, aye, Vice Chair Sauter, Vice Chair Sauter, aye, Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, madam clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Madam Clerk, may we please call the next item?

Yes, the next item five is a hearing to consider that the person to person permiss to premise transfer of a type 20 off-sale beer and wine liquor license to Castro Bottle Shop INC, doing business as Castro Bottle Shop, located at 2306 Market Street in District 8.

Will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Welcome back, Officer Erickson.

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

You have before you a PCN report for Castro Bottle Shop Incorporated, operating as Castro Bottle Shop.

They have applied for a type 20 license, and if approved, this will allow them to operate in off-sale beer and wine convenience market at 2306 Market Street.

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

They are located in plot 412, which is considered a high crime area.

They are in Census Tract 169, which is considered a high concentration area.

Mission station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation approval with the following conditions.

Condition one, 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 premises as depicted on the ABC Form 257.

And condition two, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which they have control as depicted on ABC Form 257.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

This has the support of District 8 Supervisor and Board President Raphael Mandelman.

This business will be located in the heart of the Castro.

I'll offer a curated selection of beer and wine, and I look forward to uh seeing it uh thrive in the neighborhood when I visit.

Uh Madam Clerk, are there any representatives from the applicant present?

Um, I don't believe so.

He was present, but he had to depart, so he had comments, and I forwarded it to all of you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Then seeing no one on the roster uh with questions or comments, Madam Clerk.

Maybe we open this item up to 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 two minutes.

It appears we have no public comment for this item.

Thank you, madam clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And um, I would like to make a motion at this time to uh move that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 20 off sale beer and wine liquor license to the applicant would serve the public convenience or necessity.

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

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

Member Wong.

Member Wong I Visher Sauter.

I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations to the applicant.

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

Mr.

Chair, that concludes our meeting agenda.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and thank you to everyone who participated for your specific participation.

We are now adjourned.