Good morning, everyone.

This meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the regular meeting of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

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

I'm joined today by fellow committee members, Vice Chair Danny Sutter and Supervisor Alan Wong.

We are grateful for our ever capable clerk today, Ms.

Monique Creighton, whom we thank in advance 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 James, Mr.

James Kawana, who will be serving as our producer today.

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 to our office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

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

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

Finally, items acted the pun today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of July 21st, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Today I will be calling some agenda items slightly out of order to be mindful of departmental staff who are giving presentations and members of the public who are attending to give public comment.

The order I will call today's agenda items is as follows.

It'll be three, four, five, two, six, seven, eight, and one.

Because we have a full agenda today and with a couple of items that hold significant public interest, we will be limiting public comment today to one minute per person.

However, we always welcome and carefully review written commentary, which is submitted into the public record and has no limit on length or content.

Madam Clerk, will you please call item number three?

Yes, item number three is an ordinance submitting the police code to provide penalties for the prohibited discharge of fireworks, including that a first offense is punishable as an infraction with a fine not less than a hundred and twenty-five dollars or more than two hundred and fifty dollars.

And a second and at in any subsequent offenses within five years of a prior offense are punishable as misdemeanors with a fine not less than two hundred and fifty dollars or more than seven hundred and fifty dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail of not more than six months or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Thank you, madam clerk.

This is a particularly timely item that was introduced by Supervisor Wong given 4th of July just last week.

Um illegal fireworks tend to surge during summer months, particularly around July.

They are dangerous, disruptive.

Um, best left to train professionals and uh bedevil both of my dogs.

I understand we have uh staff from several departments here to speak to this this morning.

And with that, uh, Supervisor Wong, the floor is yours.

Colleagues, this legislation comes before us just days after the 4th of July when San Francisco once again saw the real public safety impacts of legal of illegal fireworks.

This year, those impacts were not abstract.

Emergency departments and first responders saw a sharp increase in serious injuries over the hall day weekend.

At General Hospital, doctors reported devastating trauma, including four people who lost eyes and five people who lost hands.

Medical incidents on July 4th and 5th were also reported to be about double the number seen during the same period last year.

Our firefighters also face significant strain.

The fire department reported roughly 576 calls in a 24-hour period, almost 200 more calls than usual, and two house fires on the 4th of July due to fireworks activity.

That is why this ordinance is necessary.

Illegal fireworks are not just a seasonal nuisance.

They are a recurring public safety and quality of life problem.

They can cause injuries, start fires, damage property, and place additional strain on firefighters, police officers, park rangers, emergency medical workers, and other first responders.

For residents, the impacts are also very real.

Families are kept awake late into the night.

Seniors, veterans, people, PTSD, and people with sensory sensitivities can be seriously affected by sudden explosions.

Animals are also affected too.

Pets panic, run away, or become injured trying to escape the noise.

I just saw a news story about one dog that ran into traffic and got hurt as a result of the uh fireworks.

And in dense neighborhoods like ours, residents worry about fireworks being discharged near homes, cars, parks, and open spaces.

San Francisco already prohibits the private discharge of fireworks, but our local prohibition has lacked a practical enforcement mechanism.

There is no enforcement mechanism, to be more exact.

Officers can respond to calls, educate people, and disperse activity, but in many cases, they do not have a clear local penalty they can issue to hold violators accountable.

This legislation closes that gap.

It creates a balanced penalty structure.

A first offense would be treated as an infraction.

With a fine between 125 and 250 dollars, this is less than a typical stop sign or speeding violation.

Repeat violations within five years could be charged as misdemeanors with stronger penalties.

This is a reasonable and proportionate approach.

The goal is deterrence and accountability, not overcriminalization.

But if something is illegal, there should be a consequence.

And if we expect our public safety agencies to enforce the law, we need to give them a workable tool to do so.

This ordinance also responds to the 2023-2024 civil grand jury report, which identified illegal fireworks as a serious year-round problem in San Francisco and recommended additional legal tools for enforcement and better tracking of fireworks related citations and fines.

This legislation is a practical public safety measure.

It supports first responders, strengthens accountability, improves enforcement, and helps protect neighborhoods from the fire injury, trauma, noise, animal welfare, and quality of life impacts caused by illegal fireworks.

I respectfully ask for your support.

I would like to now invite several representatives from our public safety agencies and community organizations to share their perspectives on this legislation and the impacts of illegal fireworks in our communities.

First, I would like to welcome Carl Nasita, government affairs manager with the San Francisco Police Department, who can speak to the additional enforcement challenges officers face and how this ordinance would provide an additional tool to address illegal fireworks activity.

Hi.

Good morning.

Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Sauter, Supervisor Wong, thank you for having me this morning.

I'm Carl Nasita, government affairs manager for the San Francisco Police Department.

I'm here to provide the police department's perspective on the proposed ordinance and also want to thank Supervisor Wong for his work on this issue.

I'll try not to repeat too much of what the supervisor said but share our perspective on the ordinance.

As the supervisor said, fireworks are already prohibited throughout San Francisco.

But the issue this legislation addresses is that our existing ordinance prohibits the conduct, but it does not provide a local infraction or misdemeanor penalty that police officers can use when they encounter someone actively discharging fireworks.

Existing California law in the California Health and Safety Code provides criminal penalties for dangerous fireworks, but many of the fireworks that are police officers encounter are consumer grade.

While those fireworks do remain illegal in San Francisco, current local law does not provide officers with a practical local enforcement mechanism.

This ordinance does not create any new prohibitions, but it does establish an enforcement mechanism for conduct that is already prohibited under San Francisco law.

As the supervisor said, it creates a graduated penalty structure.

A first violation is an infraction with repeat violations subject to misdemeanor penalties, and it does give officers an additional enforcement option when they encounter these violations.

So from the police department's perspective, this is an incremental but meaningful change.

I don't want to suggest that the legislation by itself will eliminate illegal fireworks or substantially change the police department's deployment model because, like every other call for service, fireworks incidents must be balanced against other public safety priorities and available staffing.

This ordinance does not change those realities, but it really does provide officers with that additional enforcement tool.

Some additional background information on illegal fireworks, some of what uh Supervisor Wong already shared.

These are more than a quality of life issue.

They create fire hazards, cause injuries, and damage homes and other property.

The civil grand jury did find that fireworks-related fires resulted in $600,000 in reported property losses in San Francisco between 2018 and 2023.

Those are only reported losses.

It also documented six fireworks related uh patients treated at San Francisco General during a single 4th of July holiday period.

The department's operational experience reflects those concerns.

SFPD dispatched calls for service data shows that officers have been dispatched to approximately 1,700 fireworks related calls since 2017.

That's an average of approximately 145 dispatch calls each year.

I do want to distinguish these police dispatched calls from those of the fire department, which far exceed the police dispatched calls.

But nearly two-thirds of police dispatch calls do occur during June and July months.

This year through July 6th, 2026, SFPD has already responded to about 70 dispatch calls for fireworks-related incidents.

And again, those are uh SFPD only dispatch calls, not the fire department.

Finally, this proposal is consistent at this as the supervisor said with recommendations from the 2023-2024 civil grand jury, which identified a lack of local enforcement as one of the city's gaps in addressing illegal fireworks.

For these reasons, the department respectfully supports this ordinance and thank you again.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Carl.

Next, I would like to invite Pat Rabbit, Deputy Chief of Operations of the San Francisco Fire Department to discuss the fire risk, emergency response impacts, and public safety concerns associated with legal fireworks.

Good morning.

Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Sauter, and Supervisor Wong.

I'm Patrick Rabbit, the Deputy Chief of Operations for the San Francisco Fire Department, here to speak regarding the fire department's response to illegal fireworks.

Just as Carl Musito stated in regards to San Francisco Police Department's response, the fire department sees an increase in responses to illegal fireworks during the months of June and July surging in the days leading up to the fourth and the days after the fourth.

The fire department responded to 576 runs as Supervisor Wong mentioned that day with a busy period in the nighttime between 9 p.m.

and midnight with 146 different incidents.

There were 17 different grass fires.

There were 55 small outside or trash fires.

Many of these trash fires were spent fireworks boxes and streets and intersections.

And then as a detailed search of our CAD dispatch, we found 14 other calls related with CAD in the CAD detail that mentioned fireworks.

As well as uh autonomous vehicle fire, which drove over a spent fireworks box and subsequently caught fire.

The fire department response data from 2020 through 2025 reinforces the scale of illegal fireworks and their problem.

This year also demonstrates the increased trend we have seen as compared to recent years.

Overall, these fireworks calls seem to have been peaking and been consistent in the days leading up to July 4th and the days immediately following.

The medical aids are consistent from 2020 through 2025 with serious injuries to people's hands, eyes, hands, um, medical calls, have not followed the down any downward try any downward trend, and still requires a significant response from our EMS side as well as a significant response from our partners at DPH and San Francisco General.

I'm happy to answer any other questions regarding the fire department's responses to illegal fireworks, grass fires during this time, as well as give support to this measure from super to Supervisor Wong and this committee.

Thank you, Deputy Chief Rabbit.

I would like to now welcome Maria Mary Ruiz Delao, staff counsel with the San Francisco SPCA who will share the animal welfare impacts of illegal fireworks and how these incidents affect pets, shelter animals, and their caregivers throughout our communities.

Good morning.

My name is Mary Driselao, representing the San Francisco SPCA, and I'm here in support of this committee's work to address the detrimental impacts on fireworks in our community, including how they affect our pets.

Approximately 50 to 60% of households have a dog or cat in San Francisco.

Noise sensitivity is better documented in dogs, and it is estimated that 40 to 50% of dogs have noise sensitivities.

These can range from mild fear to severe fear and panic.

These animals express classic signs of fear, such as dilated pupils, increased heart rates and panting, but animals with severe fear will tremble, hide or run, and often through windows or chew through walls or doors in a panic.

And it is not only the animals who suffer.

Owners of animals with noise phobias endure additional expenses of veterinary care, medication, boarding, or travel out of the city in an effort to avoid known times of illegal firework use.

And worse, because of the frequency of the use of illegal fireworks, it is not possible for pet owners to protect their beloved pets from this form of distress and suffering.

We can't stress this enough.

This is not just a minor inconvenience.

Fireworks leave animals so terrified that some suffer extreme distress.

For some animals, this stress can be fatal, and this affects all pets.

It's not anything to do with training.

This year, a highly trained police dog in Fresno County was so frightened by fireworks that he ran into traffic and was hit by a car.

Low-income families and unhoused residents with pets are especially challenged in a disproportionate way, without the same freedom to get out of town to avoid the effects of illegal fireworks that are obviously most prevalent in the lead up to July 4th, which we all just experienced.

From an equity standpoint, we know this matters to you all and to your constituents, so please count us as a resource in your brain trust on this issue as you work to address this challenge.

And thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Ruiz Delao.

Finally, I would like to invite Jenny Perez of the Veteran Affairs Council and her husband Nicholas Rusinoff, a veteran with disabilities, who will speak about the impacts that fireworks can have on veterans and others who may experience trauma-related responses to sudden explosions and loud noises.

Thank you.

Good morning, members of the board and everyone here.

My name is Jenny Perez, and I'm a resident of District 6, representing caregivers, families, and animal owners.

While fireworks are seen as a celebration, their impact lasts far beyond one night.

I live in District 7, and five years ago I lived in District 7.

Sorry, I live in District 6.

I used to live in District 7.

In District 6, displays are more controlled in district seven next to the Balboa Reservoir.

Illegal fireworks went on until 4 a.m.

Headphones and earplugs are not a solution for people with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, children on the spectrum, or animals.

These tools simply don't work.

Families are forced into extreme measures, prescribe medication, or leaving the city entirely.

That's not a choice.

It's a forced evacuation with real financial and emotional costs.

And the impact last days for veterans, children, and pets trying to recover.

Celebration should not come at the cost of people's health.

We urge you to pursue quieter, moderate alternatives.

Thank you.

Thank you to all our speakers for being here today and sharing the perspectives on this important issue.

Great.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

I appreciate your leadership on this, and I would uh like to be added as a co-sponsor to this item.

I don't see anybody on the oh I do.

Uh Supervisor Solder.

Vice Chair Sautter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um please, uh Madam Clerk, please add me as a co-sponsor as well, and Supervisor Wong, thanks for your work on this.

I think um from the speakers today, uh you've made a really um compelling case on on all of the different individuals and populations that this does impact and certainly after this past week um we see that you know I understand the spirit and excitement of of fireworks of course um but I think uh as was stated earlier best left to the professionals thanks.

Thank you Vice Chair Sauter.

Uh seeing no other questions or comments Madam Clerk may we invite a public comment on this item item three.

Yes members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows all speakers will have one minute.

Okay.

Thank you.

It seems like the only way um to stop this by the way I live in Brunnell Heights my name is Flo Kelly is to um make sure that these things don't get sold you know and in people's hands.

And which I think also means that you might have a better outcome if you can um coordinate with all of the towns around us because uh we know how that goes if people really want something that's dangerous they're gonna go for it.

And that's that's already too late.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker please.

Good morning supervisors my name's Justice I'm a district of uh D1 in the Richmond I have serious concerns about this ordinance as it really attacks the issue from an enforcement perspective which I think has proven in many cases to be truly ineffective aside from the racial disparities that will almost certainly come from an enforcement model like this one it lacks any community education model to include at this and as Flo Kelly stated I think trying to attack the sellers of fireworks rather than penalizing especially with a misdemeanor communities that will be dispor disproportionately impacted will have lifetime effects um and so I please urge you to reconsider this legislation and add in more community efforts um alternatives to fireworks um I do think this is an issue but I think that enforcement is not the only way to solve this and this legislation lacks a competent comprehensive review.

Thank you.

Thank you next speaker please good morning supervisors uh my name is Avi Fry I'm an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California we submitted a letter uh to each of you and to the full board uh in opposition to this ordinance uh and I'd like to rather than repeat what's in the letter just clarify the real basis for that we do not dispute that fireworks are a serious problem in San Francisco.

Certainly everything Supervisor Wong that you've said about fireworks is true.

And we agree with the folks who came here and spoke about the danger to animals uh the harm to people um the uh specific harm to veterans and others with PTSD I myself live in the in the mission and two years ago I was shot in the leg with a with an errant firework I know this is a serious problem and so does our organization.

The reason we oppose is these are problems from dangerous fireworks which are already criminalized.

There's a serious mismatch between this ordinance and the problem this ordinance creates penalties for safe and sane fireworks like sparklers and snappers thank you for your comments I would love for you to explain to the public how this addresses next speaker please my name is I live in the mission and there's fireworks I see them but I don't really see them because I've heard there each time but I would just like to mention I also heard on the news that the people that went to that legal fireworks, there were all kinds of people that couldn't fit in the buses.

There were all kinds of accidents.

There were all kinds.

I just talked about her on the news of facts where um there were problems because there were just so many people that wanted to go and not enough room and that transportation was terrible also.

And also I would like to add that it seems anything Federal does or says this city feels to have to abide by.

I mean, we already have enough billionaires here.

We have Trump, we have Louie.

Make this a people city like it used to be.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I want to briefly respond to some of the concerns raised in opposition.

I take seriously the concern that enforcement should be fair, proportionate, and not unnecessarily punitive.

That is why this legislation uses a measured structure.

A first offense is an infraction, not a misdemeanor.

The penalty is less than a typical stop sign or speeding violation.

Stronger penalties are reserved for repeat violations within five years.

This is not an arrest first approach, and it is not about criminalizing celebration.

It is about giving the city a practical tool to enforce a prohibition that already exists.

San Francisco already prohibits the private discharge of fireworks.

The problem is that our existing local law lacks a clear and practical enforcement mechanism.

Officers can respond, educate people, and disperse activity, but in many cases, they do not have a local penalty they can issue when someone is actively violating the law.

Some have argued that penalties will not deter fireworks use because deterrence depends on the certainty of being caught, not the severity of the punishment.

But without a clear penalty, the reason for officers to intervene diminishes.

If there is no meaningful citation or consequence available, then the practical likelihood that someone will be stopped, cited, or held accountable goes down.

That reduces the certainty of enforcement.

The very thing opponents say matters most.

A prohibition without a practical citation tool is not meaningful deterrence.

A clear, citable local offense paired with a public education and outreach gives the city a more realistic way to change behavior.

We have also heard that state law already addresses fireworks, so this ordinance is redundant.

But state law primarily addresses even more dangerous fireworks and related possession offenses.

San Francisco's local prohibition applies to discharge of all fireworks within the city.

By the time fireworks are being discharged in our neighborhoods, residents and first responders need a tool that applies to the conduct happening here.

On equity, I want to be clear.

Low-income communities, immigrant communities, and communities of colors are not less deserving of protection from dangerous and harmful activity.

If fireworks related calls are concentrated in certain neighborhoods, that also means the residents living with the explosions, fire risk, trauma, sleep disruption, and danger are from those same neighborhoods.

Equity cannot only mean limiting enforcement, it must also mean protecting residents in impacted communities when they're asking for relief.

This ordinance is not the whole solution.

We should pair it with public education, multilingual outreach, responsible implementation, and transparency around enforcement.

But leaving the law unenforceable does not protect communities.

For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Would you like to make the motion for your proposed ordinance?

I would like to make a motion to recommend this to the full board.

The positive recommendation?

Yes.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

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

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

Member Wong.

Aye.

Member Wong, aye.

Fais your solder.

Fleischer Sodder, aye.

Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations, Supervisor Wong.

My dogs, thank you.

Madam Clerk, may you please call the next item.

Number four.

Yes, item number four is an ordinance amending the police code to repeal the prohibition prohibition on certain types of libraries lending or renting any book, magazine, pamphlet, or other printed matter to any person under the age of 21 unless the person has obtained a membership card with the consent of a parent or legal guardian.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This call this uh item was also introduced by Supervisor Wong.

Uh, feel Supervisor Wong, feel free to uh walk us through the legislation.

Yes.

This is the first ordinance in our office's broader code cleanup package, and it repeals San Francisco's old circulating library law.

A circling circulating library was essentially a private for-profit book rental business.

Under this law, a library could not lend or rent a book, magazine, pamphlet, or other printed material to anyone under 21 unless that person had a membership card approved by a parent or guardian in writing signed in person in front of the librarian.

So in theory, a 20 year old could vote, serve in the military, get married, but would need parental permission to rent a book.

This industry disappeared long before blockbuster even existed, and now blockbuster is gone too, which gives you a sense of how obsolete this provision is.

Repealing it does not create any sort of enforcement gap.

It simply removes an outdated law from the police code, and we've uh checked in with the library and police department for this ordinance.

Good government means not only passing new laws, but cleaning out old ones.

I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong, Vice Chair Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Dorsey, and thank you again, Supervisor Wong, for your work on this.

Um, I'm a co-sponsor and certainly will be supporting it.

Um, and I think it is good code cleanup.

Uh and I mean of all the things I worry about with my daughter getting into trouble uh with one day um getting a library card, um, going to the library is not one of them.

Um, you know, I think uh I think this is reasonable.

I think back to um growing up and um you know just the the freedom and excitement that a library affords uh and the fact that we have so many great neighborhood branches.

Um I think this is just a nice way to remove some of the barriers and make it more accessible uh for for children into teenagers too to really um be welcomed at our library.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sauter.

Um, thank you both for your leadership on this.

Madam Clerk, may we invite up public comment on this item?

Yes, members of the uh public who would like to speak on item one shall item now along the side by the window.

Item four, excuse me, shall item now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have one minute.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

Supervisor Wong, would you like to make the motion for your uh ordinance?

I'd like to make a motion to have a positive recommendation to the full board.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

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

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

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Vic Chair Sauter, aye, Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

Uh, Madam Clerk, can we please call the next item, item number five?

Yes, item number five is an ordinance amending the health code to repeal the prohibition the prohibition on transporting bread in open baskets or containers on city streets.

The prohibition on selling unsterilized rags and other types of cloth to be used for cleaning in industrial places of employment and related regulations, and the prohibition on operating a laundry for sterilizing such rags without a permit.

Thank you, madam clerk.

Uh, this item was also introduced by Supervisor Wong.

Uh, Supervisor, the floor is yours.

This is the second ordinance in our office's code cleanup package.

It repeals two outdated health code provisions.

The first is an old prohibition on transporting bread, cakes, or pastries through city streets in open baskets, exposed containers, or exposed vehicles.

The second set of provisions governs industrial wiping wags, including requirements around sterilization, inspection, labeling, and laundry permits.

These laws were not silly when they were adopted.

The bread provision appears to come from an era when San Francisco was understandably worried about disease, contamination, and yes, even plague.

But in 2026, we have modern food safety standards, and residents should not have to wonder whether carrying an exposed bagel down the street can become a public health incident.

And also, if you're carrying a donut outside on the street, you should not be concerned that you're an outlaw.

Likewise, workplace sanitation and occupational health are now governed by modern state and federal standards.

We do not need outdated local provisions that make people wonder whether washing a car with dirty underwear somehow triggers a municipal wiping rag violation.

This ordinance does not weaken public health protections or create an enforcement gap.

It simply removes outdated and overly specific provisions that no longer serve a practical purpose.

Good government is not only about passing laws, it is about taking a look at the old ones and asking do we still need this?

In this case, the answer is no.

This is part of a broader effort from my office to identify and repeal obsolete outdated and unnecessary laws.

I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Madam Clerk, may we open this item up to public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on item five shalline them now along the side by the windows all speakers will have one minute.

Mr.

Chair we have no public comment.

Thank you Madam Clerk public comment on this item is now closed.

And Supervisor Wong would you like to make the motion of your share I should move this to the full board of a positive recommendation.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

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

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

Member Wong member Wong I Vice Vishair Sauter aye Chair Dorsey I.

Chair Dorsey I have three ayes.

Thank you Madam Clerk the motion passes Madam Clerk can we please now go back to item number two.

Yes item number two is a resolution affirming San Francisco support for the speedy safety system pilot program and urging the exploration of changes to strengthen the program including increasing the number of allowable speed camera locations with priority given to corridors on the high injury network in other locations with demonstrated safety need.

Just noting this item will be forwarded to the full board as a as a committee report at the July 14th 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thank you Madam Clerk colleagues I introduced this resolution around the time that the one year anniversary for speed enforcement cameras came around because I think it's important we highlight how well this program is working and put ourselves on record as a city to support strengthening and expanding it.

This program took several tries in the California legislature and I am very grateful for the leadership of former assembly member Laura Friedman that she provided in finally getting this bill across the finish line.

I also want to recognize the um the longstanding leadership of our current city attorney former assembly member David Chu, who during his time in the legislature sponsored this law several times.

Back in 2023 I joined advocates from WAC SF and Families for safe streets for an advocacy day in Sacramento.

It was deeply moving to see how traffic violence affects people's lives and how some family members and loved ones find purpose in advocating for traffic safety like speed enforcement cameras to ensure that no more families face the tragedies that they did.

San Francisco moved quickly to implement the bill and to maximize the program to the fullest extent of the law this board took action to allow a design bill to contract to facilitate smooth implementation earlier this year the SFMTA released its data on the first full year of the program and the results I think speak for themselves.

Speed has dropped an average of 80% at the 33 locations in this pro in this program many of them in my district and just let me say it reduced illegal dangerous speeding by 80% on average.

District 6 has many dangerous arterials where drivers behave as if they're on a highway when reality they're in the middle of a dense urban neighborhood the streets with cameras do feel safer and we've seen incredible progress this program is proving why we should have even more of this life-saving technology the resolution that I am proposing recognizes the program's success and puts San Francisco on record in saying we should support it and that we believe the state legislature should strengthen and expand it I want to thank WAC SF for their unrelenting advocacy on this issue and MTA for their diligent work to implement and run the program.

I appreciate this board's prior support of resolutions to support the state law that's AB 645 as well as the trailing legislation needed to implement it promptly I hope you will join me in supporting this resolution today.

And I see both uh colleagues would like to speak Supervisor Wong I'd just like to be added as a co-sponsor to this.

Thank you.

Thank you Supervisor Wong Vice Chair Sauter.

Thank you Chair Dorsey for this resolution and um I know we have many members from Family for Safe Streets and Walk SF, thank you for your long leadership on this.

And this has indeed been a success.

And I will tell you in the in the first days of these cameras coming online, you know, the feedback and the questions from constituents were about how these worked and maybe some concerns.

But very quickly, as uh people have gotten used to them and have as they've seen and felt the streets around these cameras get safer, get slower.

Um, that is quickly a changed to how can we get more of these?

And we have 33 across the city.

Uh, and you know, I certainly know many uh many places in my district, and I think we all can can say the same that would benefit from uh from this technology and from this safety device.

Um, so certainly uh appreciate SFMTA's leadership for us being the first in the state to uh go out with this pilot, and I want to continue pushing.

I think we've already made the case that these work and that this uh that we should have the partnership from the state to expand these quickly.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sauter.

Um let's open this item up, uh, Madam Clerk to uh public comment.

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

All speakers will have one minute.

Yoranda Katsaka, I just heard an article yesterday that all this police surveillance, all these uh transportation surveillance originated in Israel, and it was geared against the Palestinians.

And it said, not only do they targeted the Palestinians, but the police, the state of Michel found ways of manipulating and then uh messing up people's way of thinking.

They were able to pry into the how they feel, how they act.

It didn't just stop with police surveillance, state surveillance.

It continues to cause mental emotion and physical danger.

I understand people want safer streets, but it's gotta be a whole different kind of mentality where people get up, work, they gotta go home, they don't have enough time, they gotta go shopping.

This this society is just too much based on speed, and so it takes more than just cameras to change those ways of behaving.

It takes loss, it takes a really cooperative society based on the needs of the people.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Glenis.

I live in district six, go district six.

Um, I live at the corner of Fourth and King, and I can distinctly hear it is so much quieter.

Speed cameras absolutely alone have made my neighborhood quieter.

It's still not a hundred percent safe.

I mean, we've still had tragic fatal accidents, but those tragic fatal accidents have been at reduced speeds.

So the more that we can get cars going slower and slower everywhere, the safer everyone's gonna be because it's the speed that's really going to kill people.

And I'm 5'8, and those fronts of those cars are scary to me.

I still feel like a six-year-old looking over them.

And we can't stop the cars from being too tall for a five foot eight woman, but we can definitely put more speed cameras in and encourage better behavior.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, Supervisor Wong.

Dorsey Insider.

I my name is John Lowell.

I live in District 6.

I am a survivor of a speeding vehicle that ran into me at the 14th administration intersection on March 23rd, 2001.

The driver was charged and found guilty in a jury trial of the criminal offense of reckless driving.

Public expenses went, were taken out by the city for his five public defenders for his six-month sentence, and for the prosecution office and the police officers' investigations.

So the charges will be less for two.

We do initiate the program of what you're recommending to the whole board of Supervisors, Supervisor Dorsey.

And I recommend you all pass this because we need more cameras out there, both for speeding and for red light running.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Supervisor Dorsey, Salter, and Wong.

I'm Lori Lai from Families for Strait Safe Streets.

Living in Brno Heights with my family since the 1980s.

People outside of vehicles are the most vulnerable to cars going too fast, especially seniors like me, children, and people with disabilities.

In the late afternoon of fall 2023, I started walking across Alamaney Boulevard in the Excelsior after the walk sign lit up.

I was in the crosswalk and made a little more than halfway to the median of the middle of Alamany, and out of nowhere, a driver turning left, swung towards me, struck me, throwing my body onto the hood of the car, slamming my head against his windshield.

The driver never saw me.

He never stopped, so he must be going pretty fast.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hello, uh, Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, Supervisor Wong.

I live in District 9, and my name is Susan George.

I'm a physician, a senior.

I use public transit in addition to walking and biking in this city.

As a physician, I remember my first trauma was a 30-year-old cyclist who had been hit by a car.

And he, yes, he had no life-threatening injuries as the newspapers like to say, but now he was a quadriplegic.

He was fully alert and knew he was unable to move his legs.

Uh, these injuries uh and many other ones are a result of speeding motor vehicles, as you all know.

We can not only evaluate the safety of our streets based on the endpoint of death, but also include all the night non-life-threatening harms as well.

We do know that the 33 speed cameras uh are already that are already operating in San Francisco have changed drivers' behavior for the better, but we need more than 33 to cover the city.

I strongly support Supervisor Dorsey's resolution to expand.

And um, San Francisco.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, um supervisors.

Our son Andrew was killed by a speeding car at the bottom of Franklin Street in front of Sherman Elementary.

Um, a car going about 40, not even the fastest among the cars going.

And it was up on the sidewalk against the building.

Without voting until the lead up to that, the city did finally take action.

They first did the bobouts to slow the turning.

That's one calming measure and to slow the traffic.

Didn't help.

They adjusted this traffic timing lights, which they admitted caused people to speed.

That didn't help.

They finally announced the speed cameras once they were approved.

I think they announced that they would put when they're in March of 24, and that finally did the trick.

So the reason the cameras are important is because all the other measures may help, but they don't always do the trick.

They're just not always enough.

And I'm sure there's more Franklin Streets and Sherman Elementaries out there that aren't being dealt with that need more than just just basic traffic copy measures.

So support this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Paul.

I live in district eight.

Five years ago, my friend and colleague Lovisa was killed by a speeding driver a block from where we sit right now.

Uh, still works a few blocks from where it happened in Ace Valley, where too many drivers behave like the central freeway is still there.

Every single day I put my two-year-old daughter on the back of my bike, and I ride through streets exactly like this one.

I won't pretend I'm not afraid.

I think about my friend at a loaf intersections and about often the difference between a closed call and a tragedy is just a few miles per hour.

That's exactly what speed cameras change, where we've installed them, drivers slow down.

More cameras means more streets where a parent like me can breathe a little easier and fewer families who lose someone they care about.

I'm asking you to please move this resolution forward to a vote by a full vote of supervisors.

Well, I hope you'll see unanimous support.

My daughter and every kid growing up in the city is counting on it.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

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

My name's Katherine Worthington.

I'm a student at USF and I live in the Richmond district in San Francisco.

I'm here to share my strong support for Supervisor Dorsey's resolution for San Francisco to actively pursue expanding the speed camera program.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for your leadership on Safe Streets.

For my summer internship, I'm doing research on nationwide speed camera programs, and I'm seeing just how well constructed this California pilot program is.

I've seen firsthand in my neighborhood how prevalent speeding is, and I'm asking that you please move this rese resolution forward to a vote by the full board of supervisors.

And I hope we can see unanimous support for more life-saving speed cameras.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Richard Bauman.

I live in the Richmond, and I very frequently cross as a pedestrian, both Geary Boulevard and Park Presidio.

And speed cameras have worked, and both of those streets are great candidates for more speed cameras.

So I very much appreciate your efforts to expand the program.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Jody Medeiros, and I'm the executive director of Walk San Francisco.

Every day, on average, three people are hit while walking in San Francisco, and 11 pedestrians have already been killed already this year, including a two-year-old.

Speeding is the number one cause of crashes.

We desperately need drivers to go at safe speeds to prevent tragedies and save lives on our streets.

And San Francisco speed camera program, which has been thoughtfully and equitably implemented by the SFMTA is proving to be a powerful solution and mode for the entire and model for the entire state.

That is why WAC SF and Families for Safe Streets fought for eight years for speed cameras to be legal here, and it's why we support expanding the speed camera program ASAP.

It is carefully designed with very strong privacy protections and fair fee structure with reduced fines for low-income people.

Legislation to expand the speed camera program would continue to do this, so please let's not wait to act.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers on this item?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

I would just like to express my gratitude to everyone for their support on this, especially WAC SF and families for Safe Streets, members of the public we heard from who shared vulnerably and powerfully about the tragedies that they've faced.

Colleagues, of course, residents, MTA, and legislators who labored for a long time to get this promising life-saving technology authorized.

And with that, I would like to move to send this proposed resolution out to the full board as a committee report with our positive recommendation.

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

Yes, and on this the motion to forward this resolution to the full board of supervisors with a positive recommendation as committee report.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Visher Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, would you please call the next item, item number six?

Yes, item number six is a hearing to consider that the issuance of a type 42 on sale beer and wine public premises liquor license to the Love Potion Library, LLC, located at 284 Noe Street in District 8, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We have a couple of liquor licenses to get through, and I know there's people here for the um the drug-free housing thing, but uh I think this will go relatively quickly.

Um we have uh Officer Brandon Erickson from the San Francisco Police Department's liaison unit to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, or ABC.

Uh, thank you, Officer Erickson.

Uh it's my understanding that the Love Potion Library is an innovative romance bookstore tea room and wine bar in the Castro.

I appreciate this the establishment's commitment uh to foster its community through its library collection, unique events and atmosphere.

Uh it's my understanding that this liquor license application has the support of board president and district eight supervisor Mandelman.

Um, floor is yours.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for having me.

You have before you a PCN report for the Love Potion Library LLC operating as the Love Potion Library LLC.

They have applied for a type 42 license, and if approved, this will allow them to operate in on-sale beer and wine public premise at 284 Noe Street.

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

They are located in plot 411, which is considered a low crime area.

They are in census track 169, which is considered a high concentration area.

Park station has no opposition.

AOU recommendation, approval with the following conditions.

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

Condition two, 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 257.

And lastly, condition three, when the said outdoor patio of the premise is being utilized for the sale, service, and consumption of alcohol beverages.

A premise employee shall be in attendance and maintain continuous supervision at all times of the said area to ensure orderly conduct of patrons.

Thank you, Officer Erickson.

I don't see anybody on the roster for comment or questions.

Why don't we open this up to public comment?

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

All speakers will have one minute.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I would like to move that to request that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 42 on-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 forwarding that resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong aye.

Vice Chair Sauter.

Vice Chair Saughter Aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, can you please call item seven?

Yes, item seven is a hearing to consider that the person to person premise to premise transfer of a type 21 off-sale general beer, wine, and distilled spirits liquor license to Del Rio Produce Market.

I INC doing businesses Del Rio Produce Market located at 2214 Clement Street in District 1.

Will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This is the second of three liquor licenses.

Officer Erickson, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

You have before you a PCN report for Del Rio Produce Market Inc.

as operating as Del Rito Del Rio Produce Market.

They have applied for a type 21 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate at an off-sale general liquor store at 2214 Clement Street.

Zero letters of support.

They are located in plot 718, which is considered a low crime area.

They are in census track 426.01, which is considered a high concentration area.

Richmond 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 property adjacent to the lace licensed premise as depicted on the ABC Forum 257.

Condition number two, 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 257.

Thank you, Officer.

Seeing no one on the roster, Madam Clerk, may we invite a public comment on this item.

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

All speakers will have one minute.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is closed.

And I would like to make the motion to request that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of the type 21 limited off-sale general 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 directing the clerk to prepare a resolution and forwarding that resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, I, aye.

Vice Chair Slaughter.

Vice Chair Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

And Madam Clerk, can we call up uh item number eight, which will be the last of our uh liquor license?

Yes, item number eight is a hearing to consider that the person-to-person premise-to-premise transfer of a type 20 off-sale beer and wine liquor license to food folk LLC doing business as food folk located at 210 Clement Street in District 1, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of San Francisco.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and uh welcome back, Officer Erickson.

You have before you a PCN report for food folk LLC operating as food folk.

They have applied for a type 20 license, and if approved, this would allow them to operate in off-sale beer and wine convenience market at 210 Clement Street.

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

They are located in plot 723, which is considered a low-crime area.

They are in Census Track 401, which is considered a high concentration area.

Sorry, Richard 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 premise as depicted on ABC Form 257.

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

Thank you, Officer.

Uh it's my understanding that food folk uh located on Clement Street in District 1 is a small market with food, pantry goods, and kitchen supplies from independent makers across the country.

Uh, this liquor license has the support of our colleague Supervisor Chan, and it's clear that the establishment is committed to uplifting small businesses and providing access to artisanal goods.

Uh Madam Clerk, may we open up public comment on this item?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on item eight shalline of nail on the side by the windows.

All speakers will have one minute.

Mr.

Chair, we have no public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment on this item is now closed.

And I would like to move that the clerk prepare a resolution making a determination that the issuance of a type 20 uh off-sale beer and wine liquor license to the applicant would serve publicly the public convenience or necessity.

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

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

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye, Vice Chair Saughter.

Vice Chair Saughter, aye.

Chair Dorsey?

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three ayes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Now, Madam Clerk, may we please go back to item number one?

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

Require that city funding for new site-based PSH for young people experiencing homelessness be used for drug-free PHS housing, except when operation of the housing as drug-free PSH would conflict with standards imposed by law or by a condition of other funding, where the funding is for new construction or the board of supervisors has waived the funding requirement based on specific findings.

Require the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing to survey residents of site-based PSH to access their interest in living in either drug tolerant PSH or drug-free PSH and report and report on the survey findings and HSH's strategies to meet PSH residents' demands and require HSH to adopt rules and regulations establishing standards and protocols for evictions from city funded drug-free housing.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um, colleagues, we have heard this item um several times.

Uh and in fact, the original iteration of this began more than two years ago in partnership with um now President Raphael Mandelman.

Um I really appreciate everyone's patience as we move toward finalizing hopefully this legislation.

Um I think I speak for all of my co-sponsors when I say that we thought very much from the beginning it was important to demonstrate an abundance of collaboration, uh, which we have, and I think today the legislation we have is better for it.

Um I do have some final amendments to introduce today.

Uh these amendments respond to concerns that we provide more clarity on how uh removals and evictions would be handled in a drug-free permanent supportive housing environment.

In particular, it would guarantee that no resident of drug-free supportive housing will ever be evicted for a single relapse, and it will guarantee that no resident of drug-free supportive housing who may choose to return to the habitual use of illicit drugs is ever involuntarily evicted into homelessness.

In fact, it will ensure in those cases that HSH provides relocation to an alternative drug tolerant model of housing or shelter in addition to services.

These amendments provide more specific direction to the department that ensures every tenant facing removal from a drug-free PSH solely for illicit drug use is offered alternative housing.

This is obviously essential to protect the integrity of the drug-free community and residents who prefer that option.

I know there is significant interest in this topic, so I will read this new language aloud.

Um it will say under section 12K six rules and regulations.

Number four, provide that before an operator may evict a resident who has engaged in illicit drug use but is otherwise in compliance with all these terms, the operator must receive confirmation from HSH that the resident has been offered alternative housing or shelter to ensure that they are not evicted into homelessness.

Aside from that main change, I also have some minor amendments to add a new section of findings to make minor changes to the definition of drug-free housing and to add clarification that eviction is prohibited solely for a single use of illicit drugs or relapse.

These amendments provide more clarity to departments as they implement this uh legislation.

And I've as I've said at prior hearings, uh, this will not be the only opportunity for feedback on this process.

Uh, the legislation itself provides for a rulemaking process, and I intend for that to be as uh collaborative as this legislative process has been.

Uh the language establishes core principles that's the legislation we're adopting today, or guardrails, if you will.

Um but the rulemaking process is a separate one that people are invited to participate in.

In fact, we actually uh discussed exactly that point yesterday when I met with the new director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, or HSH, Mike Levine.

Um, together with uh HSH's Emily Cohen, we are all in agreement that the forthcoming rulemaking process should be and will be as inclusive and participatory as possible.

Um finally, I want to make one point about um political support for drug-free supportive housing in San Francisco.

Um last December, EMC Research, which is an Oakland-based uh national polling firm, conducted a certain citywide survey of 400 San Francisco voters.

It had a 4.9% uh margin of error, and it asks the following hypothetical question.

Shall the city require that all new city-funded permanent supportive housing for the homeless prohibit the use of illicit drugs on site and mandate the inclusion of recovery focused options for those seeking to maintain their sobriety from alcohol or substance use disorders.

Public support for drug-free supportive housing turns out to be overwhelming, with 69% saying yes and only 31% saying no, a better than two to one advantage for drug-free housing options.

So this is progress that the large majority of San Franciscans themselves recognize we desperately need.

And with that, uh Madam Clerk, may we now invite up, unless my colleagues want to say anything.

I don't see anybody on the roster.

Madam Clerk, may we invite a public comment on this item?

And as I mentioned earlier, given the agenda today, we have uh and other other things we've had to hear.

Uh public comment is limited to one minute.

Yes.

Um, Mr.

Chair.

I also wanted to note that this item will be forwarded to the full board as a committee report on July 14th at the July 14th Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

First speaker.

Oh, excuse me.

Let me formally call for public comment.

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

All speakers will have one minute.

You can begin.

Thank you.

I'm really sorry that we only have one minute.

It's just crazy to try to say everything in one minute.

So I think rather than um figuring out what people on the street in Oakland think regarding Europe.

What you want to uh do?

Sorry.

It is really better to look at what the scientists have found out.

What is it that people need in order to truly not be addicted?

Relapse is part of recovery.

Addiction is a chronic disease.

So people in sober housing are there because they actually want to be sober.

And in a lot of these homes, there's families.

And I can tell you, Flo Kelly is a retired SFUSD special ed teacher.

I can say that it has a terrible comments.

It's terrible for children to be evicted.

Thank you for your comments.

Terrible.

Next speaker.

I use 9101s afterwards.

If I were to tell people my experience when I used to access a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, say let them use the drugs.

That is saying this.

I spoke with some people in a building where I live, which is subsidized.

And they told me they pay rent.

They have a right to live the life they want to live.

Other people said when they use drugs, it makes them function better.

So I think it's truly taking away the rights and privileges of a people in a city that was based on love and hippies and the drug use of the 60s, which was used as drugs to stop and combat against the war in Vietnam.

And for that, they came up with Nixon's law about drug addiction that said that penalized people who using marijuana, which many hippies, white hippies, African-American who seen heroin, because that was a way of fighting against the war in Vietnam.

So this is political, it's not just social, it's not it's political.

Let the people decide how they want to live because they do need help, and it would just take them back into homelessness if they're put in shelters or put back in some kind of other housing.

They have rights also.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, Chair Dorsey and Supervisor Wong and Sauter.

I'm with the Coalition on Homelessness.

Um we are supportive of drug-free housing.

Um there is one small thing that I hope everyone giving public comment today recognizes as well, which is on the second relapse, there isn't an opportunity to get placed in drug tolerant PSH.

It's not stated in the legislation, it says shelter or another alternative form of housing.

Let's just say PSH.

Let's just say drug tolerant PSH.

There's no reason if someone were to relapse, God forbid, on a second time, that they shouldn't just be placed in PSH.

You have refused that amendment.

And I think that that's a mistake, and I hope that the public comment given today by folks recognizes that that should be a protection.

There is no reason not to put that in as a protection, and it doesn't do anything to jeopardize sober housing.

Sober housing can remain sober.

It's just when on a second relapse, that person be given an option to stay in PSH.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Salter.

My name is Richard Beale.

I am a very grateful recovering addict.

And in nine days, I'll be celebrating 31 years cleaning sober.

And with no slips, no dips, no weekend trips.

You know, I'm really grateful that this is coming forward.

I'm grateful for this ordinance.

You know, I am the director of recovery services for Tendalloin Housing Clinic.

We are one of the largest providers of housing, SRO housing in the city and county of San Francisco.

I'm also a co-founder of Bad Brothers Against Drug Deaths.

And so I strongly support drug-free supportive housing ordinance because people in recovery deserve more than just housing.

They deserve an environment where recovery can grow.

This ordinance is about choice, dignity, accountability, and life.

First, it requires newly semi-refunded, funded uh permanent supportive housing to prohibit illicit drug use on site.

If San Francisco invests millions of dollars in helping people escape addiction, homelessness, incarceration, and overdose, then we must also invest in how it is protects recovery.

Thank you for your comments.

We're living in public comment to one minute.

Okay, so I just want to say people need a choice.

People need a chance, people need a home, and recovery is first.

When I say recovery, y'all say first.

Recovery, recovery.

My name is Richard Beale.

I am the ambassador for recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Beale.

Hello, board of supervisors.

I'm Marquise Allen.

I'm a client at Positive Directions TRP.

I've been sober for eight months.

I believe in living in an environment that is drug infested is counterproductive to one who has an intentions on being sober and living a healthy, clean, and safe lifestyle.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Elizabeth Funk, and I'm here in support of Supervisor Dorsey's legislation because it's fundamentally about fairness and choice.

The core issue is simply that we fund only one model of PSH, one that prohibits nothing.

That's a choice we've made on behalf of residents.

But the tender only housing clinic surveyed 450 of their residents and found 71% would prefer to live in a drug-free environment.

Seven out of ten people told us what they want, and we're not offering it.

This is not about discrimination against people who use drugs.

We should continue funding drug tolerant housing, but we must trust residents to know what they want.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, Supervisors Tomwolf, recovery advocate.

I just want to hit you with some quick data.

From 2020 to 2025, 4,090 people, 4,090 people died of a drug overdose in San Francisco.

And then according to the voice of San Francisco's data and Gina McDonald, 784 of them died in permanent supportive housing.

Permanent supportive housing makes up one and a half percent of the people housed in San Francisco, and 784 people died of a drug overdose inside that housing.

All the while, the city spent $2 billion over those five years on permanent supportive housing, and none of it was for drug-free recovery housing.

Enough.

We've had enough.

It's time for drug-free housing.

I've been fighting with Supervisor Dorsey and others for years on this issue.

It's okay to have a separate track for supportive housing.

It's okay to ask more of people to actually get in recovery and put the dope down.

I'm Tom Wolfe.

I'm eight years in recovery.

I know all about it.

Uh, it's time for change in the city.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Justice Doomlau, speaking on behalf of the Treatment on Demand Coalition.

Um I want to reinstate again our support for drug-free housing.

I do think the spirit of this legislation is good.

However, the execution of it, I have some issues with.

Firstly, of course, preventing uh housing dollars from going to PSH and preventing it from going to where it needs to go, I think is a mistake.

We need more housing in the city.

And to reiterate Lucas' point, I believe that the specific cutout for shelter is really a mistake in this ordinance.

It takes so much for people to get through the system to just get into PSH.

And so jeopardizing people and penalizing people for not being perfect humans when they inevitably relapse because this is part of recovery, and taking them away from that stable housing will only further push them into the issue that they are trying so desperately to get out of.

So I really, really want to urge you to accept this amendment.

Thank you so much.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Jordan Voshleski.

My pronouns are she, her, and once again, I'm fucking angry.

I have to be here fighting against this false dichotomy.

If this is a pilot program, nobody would be against it.

If the just transitional low-barrier housing was improved, nobody would be against it.

If it's about options, nobody would be against it.

But Dorsey is the real fucking extremist here.

Dish did a survey of tenants, and surprise, surprise, very few tenants support this legislation.

I talked to tenants in my THC building, and nobody supports it.

And why are you doing positive things for us, PSH tens?

As someone who's led on positive legislation for PSH and SRO tenants, who is advocated during the 10 empowerment week last month for real solutions.

I get sick to my stomach every time someone does shit without us.

As PSH tenants, our success is the city's success.

I also think this legislation, like Supervisor Dorsey's is transphobic.

It says it's just a fucking giveaway to Salvation Army and other nefarious pro pedophile religious organizations.

Fuck your religions, churches should burn, not be providing social services housing.

I yield my time.

Fuck you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Ray Orfiano, and um I'm a resident of KCC.

I'm a peer responder and I'm five years sober.

Um I just want to give you a little of my personal story.

Um I in 2020, I was brought into KCC Kelly Collin community to live in uh supportive housing, um, severely addicted, and uh was found multiple times um by a social worker.

Social worker found me half dead, put me into a hospital.

I stayed there for two years fighting for my life.

They kept my housing for two years.

I was able to come back and keep my housing, and I've been sober ever since.

So I um I I do not uh agree with this at all, and I think people should be given a chance.

I don't think that my way is the only way.

I think that some people do need a slap on the wrist.

Um, but I think that there should be both together.

Um also just a quick comment that harm reduction is a dying term, but as long as I'm alive, I will still be fighting for it.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Lanier Coles, and I'm gonna be reading a statement from Michael Mirac Fitro in support of drug-free housing.

Dear supervisors, my name is Michael Mirac Fitro.

Today I'm speaking not just on behalf of the American Addiction Recovery Association as a member of their board of governors, but as a gay man and a queer person living in recovery from substance use disorder and homelessness.

I moved here in 2022, homeless and in the throes of addiction.

Coming from the South, I know what it's like to live in under-resourced communities in states where Medicaid is not a human right, and the topic of addiction is taboo.

But what I found in San Francisco to be taboo is being honest about the drug crisis and the fact that this city has turned a cold shoulder to individuals seeking housing that is drug-free and conducive to sobriety.

I have found that the city has shamed and stigmatized individuals seeking drug-free housing in the name of progressivism and compassion.

There were no drug-free housing options when I moved here, and I was constantly exposed to active drug use, which took me further into the depths of depression.

Thank you for your comments.

Just a reminder, we were limiting public comment to one minute, please.

Next speaker.

It moves them and possibly their families from housing to shelter and back to the street.

Where addiction gets worse and not better, it punishes relapse instead of treating it.

I'm here because people gave me chances, so many chances, and that's what recovery looks like.

So give people a choice either treatment, a transfer into another housing unit that suits their needs, or to stay housed while they fight for their sobriety.

A shelter is not a home.

We still have chance for further amendments.

Please don't evict people into homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Artis Crenshaw.

Um, I went to the TRP Academy.

I'm gonna get straight to the point.

Supporting drug-free housing should be a mandatory, we shouldn't be even be up here talking about it.

If we're here to save the streets and clean up San Francisco, what is the debate about?

So the funding should be a mandatory.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Assassin Saslam Liebig.

Um I would like it if we could have more drug-free environments and less fentanyl dens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Glenn Clark.

I'm also in a positive directions TRP.

Um I think it's very much necessary to have drug-free housing.

Um I work in a supportive housing place.

And uh we need drug-free housing, no needles, no glass, no torches, accountability, support, classes, counseling, all of that is very necessary.

I just graduated from TRP, and in two weeks I went to my environment, and it was very toxic.

It was very toxic.

I had to leave that environment because it wasn't drug-free, it wasn't toxic free.

It would be very, very much necessary for us to have drug-free housing.

Definitely should be on the agenda.

We need the same energy put in supportive housing.

That needs to be that same energy needs to be put into drug-free housing.

I appreciate y'all for letting me talk.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh good morning.

Uh board of uh supervisors.

Uh, my name is Ricardo Cruz.

Um, as someone in recovery, I supported drug-free supportive housing because I know how important a safe environment is.

Recovery is hard enough without being surrounded by drugs and or constant temptations.

Having a place where everyone is committed to staying sober creates accountability, encouragement, and hope.

Drug-free supportive housing isn't about judging people who are still struggling with addiction.

It's about giving those of us who have chosen recovery the best chance to rebuild our lives.

It provides stability structure in the community of people who understands what we're going through.

Recovery isn't just about quitting drugs, it's about creating a new lifestyle.

A drug-free home gives us people the opportunity to find employment, reconnect with family, improve their health, and become productive members of the community.

I stand behind drug-free supportive housing because I've experienced how the right environment can make the difference between relapse and lasting recovery.

Everyone deserves the opportunity to look here in a safe, sober, and supportive place.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is David Lewis, and I am in support of drug-free housing.

And let me let me lead with a quote.

When an individual's lifestyle choices are going to affect society, then society must intervene.

I myself went through a rehab.

If I was surrounded with people using, I wouldn't have gotten clean.

I went ahead and I graduated from that program, and I went into housing, which had no drugs or alcohol around me, and that's what I needed, and that's what I needed to survive.

But yet, later on, 12 years later, I did have a relapse.

I was not ready, apparently.

But then when I came back, I was ready.

So I do agree with the amendment of having one relapse is okay.

But if you relapse a second time, obviously, you're just messing around.

So I believe in drug-free housing, and I believe in this current bill with the amendment given.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hey guys, my name is Christopher Mattson.

Uh one time I had 11 years clean.

I relapsed, I was out for 10 years uh slamming meth meth amphetamine and drinking alcohol fifth a day.

Uh I had a spiritual awakening in jail.

I came to Harbor Lights.

It saved my life.

I I'm graduating in eight weeks, and um I don't want to go back on the streets.

You know, uh, I don't feel safe enough.

I've been taught the right things to do of how to survive in sobriety again and have worked the steps.

And uh I'm just uh I'm pro for the housing to help people like me.

I'm 57 years old and uh uh my future looks really bright.

So I just could use the assistance.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Jason Jabo.

I'm a student at TRP Academy.

Um, Positive Directions.

Um, and I've in my vision of recovery doesn't have relapse in it.

I believe that um the only way that I'm gonna maintain being sober on my road to recovery, which is a lifetime thing, um, is by being in an environment that's conducive to me staying clean and sober.

You know, um, I I deserve San Francisco deserves uh uh a citizen that's gonna be productive and and I deserve my family deserves it.

Everybody deserves a clean, sober environment so they can become the best, best um sell best, best person they could possibly be in life.

And um I support this 1000%.

Um we have to have this done, man.

San Francisco deserves better, and uh we all deserve better.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

All right, good morning, supervisors.

Drug-free housing, I totally support.

And housing shouldn't just be about putting a roof over someone's head, it should be about building the foundation for a person so they can have the stability and the wherewithal to be able to live independently and free and be able to stand on their own two feet without depending on government to be able to take care of them for the rest of their lives.

Also, with drug-free housing, it's about community.

And when you're in recovery, it's a very important to have community of people that are around you that are supportive, that care for you, and show love.

And we don't get that too much in this city.

So right now, I just pray that all of us be able to stand together, whether you disagree or agree with this, that we have an avenue for the people that want to remain sober and have safe housing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Morning, supervisors.

My name is Olive Madison.

I live in District 9.

Um, I am surrounded by my lovely unhoused neighbors, and that's not a joke.

Um, I do um find community in them more than um many people in the city um who are housed.

Um I urge you to um continue um your collaborative nature, as you say, and work with the coalition on homelessness.

Um Lucas brought up a really great point that um these this bill needs amendments in order for it to be successful.

Um people should not be punished for relapsing, it is part of the process.

Um, and if you truly want these people to be out of sight, out of mind, um, you will can you're gonna continue sweeping.

Um, but I also urge you to think about things like safe use sites, which blows my mind that San Francisco does not have one.

Um, allow people to enter into the system of recovery with a supportive nature of your conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Richard.

I'm always a student at TRP.

Um, right now I just wanted to look at the expanding drug-free permanent supportive housing.

I think the most important word in that statement right there is supportive.

And the reason in which I say that is because in order to have support, that's the only way in which you can progress.

And the supportive measures in which is that they learn to entrust in themselves is through these different skills in which we can gain through uh case management, different uh tools that we can learn to utilize in our personal life that can help us uh move up as far as like educational-wise and things like that.

So I think that um I like the idea of it.

Um I believe in a drug-free environment.

Um, I think one relapse is a good, a good, honest, fair um compliment as far as like individuals continuously doing what they gotta do, but I really uh am supportive of this uh ordinance and I appreciate you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Yeah, my name is Lloyd Banks.

Now I've I've been on drugs and in the penitentiary for the last 50 years, and never really gave any thought or had any kind of education about getting out getting off drugs until I got into a drug-free environment that's giving me the education, the counseling, and the resources to deal with my addiction and my criminal behavior.

Drug-free environment is what this city needs more of, not less of.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Supervisor Wong, Sautter, and Dorsey.

My name is Derek La.

I'm currently house under Drake Hotel under supervision of Richard Beale.

I also work at Chase Center, and I do love my job.

The person who hired me, his name is Tomas, he's no longer there.

He's known as the captain of a lower HP.

And I bumped him the other day and asked him, why are you're not there.

I'm not getting enough hours.

I need to pay for child support.

So I vouch for support of housing because the cost of living is way too high.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Amber Richmond.

I've heard people say this ordinance takes housing away.

It doesn't.

It adds another voluntary option for people who choose recovery.

I've also heard people say all housing is recovery housing, and I respectfully disagree.

Six years ago, I was housed, but I was overdosing alone on my bedroom floor.

Housing kept me alive, but it wasn't recovery.

In a few days, I'll celebrate seven months sober.

Recovery requires more than a roof.

Environment matters.

We spend a lot of time talking about what happens if someone relapses, but what about the people that never relapse because they finally have the support and the environment that they need.

Meeting people where they are means meeting everyone, including the people who say yes and say, I'm ready.

So please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Wow, that's inspiring.

Good morning, supervisors.

Um I could not agree with more with what the comments uh that we just heard.

Um, Marie Hrabiel, I obviously support this, as everyone knows.

Lifelong San Franciscan who's wondering how my hometown has been host to thousands of people dying on our streets and in uh PSH for the last few years.

Um the Coalition on Homelessness has done a brilliant job of expanding homelessness and drug addiction on our streets.

So if we want to make real progress here, I think we need to not do what they advise.

The issue here is straightforward.

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

Most housing in San Francisco is not drug free.

So if people need that option, there is plenty to choose from.

It is time to expand our options and provide sobriety, stability, treatment, and recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for your service.

My name is Linda Mantel, and I've been living in the tender line for the last 20 years.

And I've also been involved with Glide Memorial Church for 36.

And uh so living in the tender line, my neighbors and I have the opportunity to walk among uh victims of drug addiction all day long, every day.

And uh we believe, and I speak for many of us when I say that drug-free housing is is definitely a solution.

People who are serious about getting into recovery deserve that chance.

So we support drug-free housing and also the amendment mentioned.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hey, supervisors.

Uh my name's Kevin.

I'm a district three resident.

Um, also work in the tenderloin, uh, organize TNDC residents.

Um, and so I agree with the spirit of this legislation.

Recovery housing, right, is important.

Sober housing is important.

However, it should not be at the expense of a housing first permanent supportive housing model.

And what I don't believe in is evicting people, and I know a lot of residents will say the same for return to use, right?

They should either be allowed to stay or be uh connected to a genuine um treatment program where they can, you know, work on their recovery.

And if we are gonna evict folks for you know, return to use, then we should at least offer them housing in a drug right tolerant housing unit, or you know, be able to allow them to uh revoke the eviction from their record.

That'd be the most humane way to go in terms of uh amendments.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is June Bug.

I'm born and raised here in San Francisco.

I'm part of Saturday Night.

I'm alive.

I'm also in solidarity with supportive housing overdose prevention network, and I'm also part of Poor Magazine Homefulness.

Housing is a human right.

Housing's needs should not be pivoted against each other.

And I do believe housing is recovery because we need no barriers to getting housing.

We have a housing problem.

Using substances is used to cope with problems.

We need to give people a choice, not an eviction.

We need to make different types of programs that come inside supportive housing that create behavioral health change that actually uses the stages of change.

We need to be able to not continue to perpetuate homelessness by making it a condition.

It's a human right.

Housing first.

Housing is recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Jamore.

Good morning.

Um I'll say so on this part of the um housing is that we need more hands-on support.

Case management.

That's what I have.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm Chris Bradford, and uh I am a longtime resident of the Tenderloin neighborhood, a community organizer, and a recovering addict.

I celebrated 15 years clean and sober.

Um, and I am a here today because I uh was allowed into housing first.

I was still using when I entered housing, and it took me a while to get clean and sober, but I eventually did.

Um housing first saved my life.

I want to read this.

This says between 93% and 96% of people who exit homelessness into permanent supportive housing programs in San Francisco remain stably housed or transition to other permanent options.

Source for that information is FFgov.org.

That's the statement by San Francisco, City of San Francisco itself.

It celebrates the success of the housing first model.

I heard people talk about some of the failures of housing permanent supportive housing, but they failed to mention the tens of thousands of people like me who benefited directly from housing first and who are still alive today because of housing first and harm reduction.

We just need, we're just asking for some modifications.

And a trial.

We believe in drug free housing, but we want to make it part of a continuum.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi, Jennifer Freedenbach, Coalition on Homelessness.

Um, just want to start off by giving a shout out to all the folks in the room, and there's so many that are in recovery, and that journey is so difficult.

It's so difficult, especially given our cultural context that prior prioritizes greed over care, um, big pharma and all these things that are happening.

We've fought for um step-down housing, sober housing, recovery housing.

We've gotten uh coalition on homelessness, hundreds of units in place, um, thousands of treatment slots.

Um, but I just want to make it clear that we need to make sure as we're moving forward on this that we're not increasing evictions and then we're giving people the opportunity to thrive.

And so if someone is wanting to go into sober housing, which is wonderful, it's so hard to get clean when you're around other users, especially in early recovery.

Uh, we want to make sure that if they relapse, if they return to use, that they're able to get into treatment and not just be evicted.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Brittany Chakwata.

I'm with the Office of Racial Equity, and we just had three outstanding requests for amendment.

One is to change the term drug tolerant to either permanent supportive housing or standard permanent supportive housing.

We don't want an unintended consequence of this term to make it such that legislators don't support the allocation of funding for permanent supportive housing because it has the name and pathology of being drug tolerant.

Our second request is to push out the date of enactment by six months.

This has been done on a lot of other legislation.

We want to give time for the rulemaking and for the survey that has been baked into the legislation.

And lastly, we respectfully ask that you change the term eviction to relocation so that it's clear that you're working to relocate people if they don't want to live in the drug uh free housing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brittany.

Next speaker, please.

I'm all for recovery and drug free environments.

I think it's a necessary part of recovery, but I don't think that people's stability in homes should be put on the line because of relapse.

A relapse does not mean a diminished earnest in recovery.

The two do not coincide.

I think that people should be given a chance.

I've lost too many friends.

Because of the shame and the stigma that revolves around a relapse.

Thank you.

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 all the members of the public who gave testimony today, and thank you to everyone who is uh meaningfully engaged in this process, not just in the last several months but over the last two years, honestly.

It has been a long process.

Um of what has been interesting about uh tackling this is that even at the state legislative level with assemblymember Matt Haney working on this, certainly at the federal level, um, there's a lot of moving parts to this policy realm.

Um so we're not doing this alone.

I think there's a lot of people who recognize the need for change.

Um there are a couple of issues that were raised in public comment that I do think merit addressing.

One is that some commenters um referred to sober housing or sometimes in in some cases recovery housing.

Um importantly, this legislation is not that.

Um, drug free um supportive housing doesn't require sobriety from legal substances like alcohol or legal marijuana, and the re the well-established model for that is actually the standard residential lease in California, which prohibits illicit drug use on site and that governs in San Francisco more than 240,000 residential tenancies citywide.

Only in permanent supportive housing, under housing first, is there a specific rule that residents can never be evicted for habitual use of illicit drugs?

That is a rule we only impose on PSH residents.

That is California law.

That is the core components of housing first.

Read the law.

Um other residential tenant in San Francisco has that rule in their lease.

Uh, and the result has too often been chaotic and dangerous situations, which can be especially dangerous for families with children as well as those in recovery who are seeking to get in recovery or stay there.

Um, it can be incredibly disruptive as well to neighborhoods.

Importantly, this legislation is not ending the drug-tolerant model of permanent supportive housing.

Um, it's adding an option that people are asking for, as we also heard people say.

There was also a representation that anyone suffering a second relapse would not be offered drug-tolerant housing.

And I don't know if that is uh looking at a previous uh iteration of this, but I do want to clarify the the amendment that I read into the record addresses that it's in uh section 12k.6.

It will provide that before an operator may evict a resident who is engaged in illicit drug use but is otherwise in compliance with all these terms.

The operator must receive confirmation from a such HSH, the housing, the Department of Housing and Support of Homelessness, support of homelessness and supportive housing, that the resident has been offered alternative housing or shelter to ensure that they are not evicted into homelessness.

So it is an option that's there.

There's additional provisions that also make sure that people are offered services.

And beyond that, as I mentioned, there is also going to be a robust rulemaking process that people can participate in.

We do want to make sure that we are supporting people in their journeys.

If people choose to not be in a drug-free environment, that should be okay.

But it just stands to reason that if we were to allow perpetual relapses and perpetual drug use, it ceases to be drug-free housing.

So we do have to have a rule for that.

Beyond today's speakers here, I also want to thank um many of the policy leaders and organizations who have written to support this legislation and who contributed in meaningful ways to its development.

Uh, two of them are giants in the drug policy realm, um, both of them from Stanford University.

Dr.

Keith Humphreys is a nationally recognized expert in addiction medicine and drug policy.

Uh, he served in President Obama's White House as a senior policy advisor to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

He has endorsed this legislation.

Um, it is also endorsed by Dr.

Anna Lemke.

Um, she serves as the Director of Addiction Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Um she's a professor and a program director director of Stanford's Addiction Medicine fellowship.

Um but Dr.

Lemke is, I think, best known as a best selling author on the topic of drug policy.

Her most recent book, um Dopamine Nation has certainly been influential to my thinking.

She also wrote a 2016 book, Drug Dealer MD, How Doctors Were Duped, Patients Got Hooked, and Why It's So Hard to Stop.

The New York Times actually recognized that as one of the top five books ever written on the opioid epidemic.

Beyond those policy leaders, I want to thank my brothers and sisters in the recovery community, in particular, recovery community advocates Theres Coates and Richard Beale, Richard, we heard from, who were the founders of Brothers Against Drug Deaths.

The Mothers Against Drug Deaths and Addiction have been phenomenal allies.

The Salvation Army, Positive Directions Equals Change, and the Bay Area Council.

Nationally, our approach is also endorsed by the American Addiction Recovery Association, as we heard from a member of its Board of Governors.

I do want to clarify that my amendments, while important, are not legally substantive, meaning the process requires no further delay with their adoption.

So with that, I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments that I have circulated and read into the record at least in part, and then send this proposed ordinance to the full board of supervisors with our positive recommendation as a committee report for the July 14th meeting.

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

Yes, and I'm a motion to accept the amendments as presented and forward the amended item to the full board of supervisors, and forward the amended item with positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors at the July 14th meeting as committee report.

Member Wong.

Member Wong, aye.

Vice Chair Sauter, aye.

Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Chair Dorsey, I have three eyes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, do we have any business before us?

This committee remaining?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes our meeting agenda.

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

The meeting is now adjourned.

San Francisco government television.