Good morning and welcome to our February 9th,

2026 Rules Committee meeting.

I am your Chair Supervisor,

Shimon Walton, joined by Vice-Chair Supervisor Steven Sherrill,

and soon to be joined by Committee Member President,

Rafael Mandelman.

Today's clerk is Victor Young,

and we are joined by James Kawano with SFGovTV to make sure that

this meeting is broadcast and available to the public for viewing. Mr. Clerk, do we have any

announcements this morning? Yes, 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.

Email them to myself, the Rules Committee Clerk, at victor.yong at sfgov.org. If you submit public

comment via email, it will be included as part of the file. You may also submit written comment to

us via U.S. mail at our office address of City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, room 244,

San Francisco, California 94102. Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

Items asked upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' Agenda of February 24,

2026 unless otherwise stated that completes my initial announcements thank you so much would you

please call item number one item number one is ordinance amending the administrative code to

remove the fire commission's authority to appoint the fire department's physician and to revise the

required qualification for one of the deputy fire chiefs and i believe we have our fire chief dean

Crispin here to discuss this item this morning. So good to see you this morning, chief. Good morning.

Good to see you too, members of the committee. Dean Crispin, chief of department. Thank you for

allowing us to present on this administrative code change that we are requesting. So there's

two pieces to it. One is the qualifications to be a deputy chief of emergency medical services

and community paramedicine, and the other piece is who is able to select our department physician.

So I'll start with our deputy chief position.

So this vacancy was created by the retirement of Deputy Chief Simon Pang,

and in evaluating that position with a vacancy, we decided as a department,

after collaborating with the union and our other affinity groups,

that we needed a more diverse and wide pool of applicants.

So the problem with the current administrative code as it stands is the position is only available to community paramedics

who are rescue captains and other chiefs in the EMS division.

And what we're trying to do in integrating the department is have a chief in this position

that understands all of the pieces of our emergency medical response and our community paramedicine.

So the folks that were excluded under the administrative code is our battalion chiefs,

who are frontline incident commanders who manage multi-casualty incidents, active attacker incidents, fires, specialized rescues.

So we felt it was really important to open that up to those folks in that position because they are our frontline commanders.

And as we reviewed our disaster response manual, we realized that as the succession planning gets down to what we call CD4,

which is this deputy chief position, we need somebody who has command experience should something horrible happen.

we would need them to actually be the chief of department

in succession planning.

And as it currently stands, unfortunately some of the folks

that are applying for it or would be interested don't quite

have the command experience that a battalion chief would have.

So, and understand that it is the chief of EMS

and community paramedicine in conversations with local 798

and other affinity groups and other interested parties,

we decided to require that they had been a paramedic

in our department so that they have that clinical knowledge

of the EMS side of our department.

So that really opens it up to a lot more candidates,

and we feel it's a common-sense solution to bring the best person in.

So we have an open and transparent process for this replacement.

And just in the initial interest, we're getting a lot of interest from folks

who actually have a strong desire to integrate our department

and have leadership qualities and management experience.

So that's the deputy chief of EMS and community paramedicine piece.

Now, the second piece is a department physician, and this was once we were considering this change in administrative code,

it was brought to us by our city attorney.

And Sarah Fabian, she indicated that actually our administrative code, as it's stated, is in conflict with the city charter.

The city charter states that the department head shall have the authority to replace the department physician, to select the department physician.

Now, I'll say this.

We love our doctor.

Dr. Chang is doing an amazing job, well-respected, an amazing clinician, doing a great job with our members, keeping us healthy and safe.

But in consultation with the city attorney, we are in conflict.

and in speaking to our fire commission,

they're going to create rules of order for our process to hire,

if we ever have to hire a department physician.

So it will be a panel interview consisting of the chief,

a member of the commission, a third party,

and making sure that we have a fair and equitable process

to select the department physician should that opening happen,

which we don't expect to.

We have a very young doctor who seems to really enjoy their job

and will be here for a while.

So that is my presentation.

If you have any questions on any of that, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you so much, Chief.

President Mendelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Welcome, Chief.

Always good to see you.

I guess I'm wondering a little bit about the history of these positions

because this deputy, I would imagine, I have not looked into this,

I would imagine that this deputy chief position focusing on EMS and community paramedicine

was a reaction to the increasing role that the fire department was playing in responding to street crisis conditions.

And, you know, particularly Simon Pang, I think, was associated with that.

Was before Pang came along, how many deputy chiefs were there?

So historically, there's been the chief of department and two deputy chiefs, operations and administration.

This position was created around 2020 because of the increased prominence of community paramedicine.

And obviously, EMS is a large part of our job.

So just to manage those two divisions really required an upper-level chief.

Right. So I get that.

But then if we're maybe thinking that that function doesn't make sense necessarily, not never, but doesn't necessarily merit a deputy chief, then why would we have three deputy chiefs going forward?

No, and that's a fair point.

And I think my two deputies who are doing the work that CD4 did right now while it's vacant would be happy to tell you how much work they have to do.

There's so much clinical and very specific things that need to be done in that area,

and that's really a full-time job plus.

Thank you, President Medelman.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Chief Christman, first of all, thank you for being here.

Always a pleasure to have you.

Looking at the legislation, it looks like for the deputy chief for community paramedicine,

the person in the new rules, the person would have had to have served as a paramedic within the department.

Is that right?

What's the minimum amount of time that a person, like, there's obviously no minimum written to the legislation here,

but what's the kind of a normal minimum that they would have served?

In our department, if you bump up from an EMT to a paramedic, you're required to maintain your license for five years.

But the challenge for our battalion chiefs is they have so much other training and high-level things that they have to do

that actually maintaining their paramedic license becomes a huge burden when you reach that level.

So many of our members have let it go, but they're still well-versed in paramedic work.

Got it. And again, it sounded to me like the reason for having a broader set of qualifications, loosening is not the word I would use, broader set of qualifications.

Is it simply to make sure that recruiting going forward has more applicants?

Or is that a future thing? Or do we feel right now there are not enough applicants?

Right now, from the numbers that we assume of people that are going to put in for it,

we're going to have a lot more applicants with this change in the administrative code.

So it's very limited as it exists because our battalion chiefs are excluded.

Now, we're not requesting to exclude anybody,

but we're just adding and making the applicant pool larger for this very selection process.

And as we go forward, more people are entering our department as paramedics

or coming from what we call Station 49, the EMS or CP side.

And so as this goes forward, we will have more and more candidates

that have that EMS experience in our department,

and it will make for a better department in the effort to integrate between suppression and EMS.

Got it. Let me rephrase my question.

Is this change a change that is a reaction to right now feeling like we may not have enough candidates today,

or is it looking forward and saying, hey, how do we broaden the pool for the future?

It's for right now that we don't feel that we have the opportunity to select from a wide range of candidates right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Cheryl.

Chief, just a quick question.

I know you said there's a parallel process that the commission is going to be working on.

When do you think that will be finalized?

So we were going to work in tandem once this legislation was approved, ideally,

and then work with the commission to develop a process to select the physician should that become available.

So it's still kind of the framework is set, but it hasn't really been officially implemented.

Got it. I would love, of course, to know what that process is as we move forward.

I'd be happy to.

Seeing no other questions or comments from colleagues, we will call for public comment on this item.

Thank you, Chief.

I guess members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?

There are no speakers.

Thank you.

Seeing no speakers, public comment is closed.

And I would like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with recommendation.

Yes.

on the motion to recommend this matter to the full board.

Vice Chair Sherrill.

Aye.

Sherrill, aye.

Member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye.

Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number two.

Item number two is the ordinance

of many of the Administrative Code

to create the Fisherman's Wharf's Entertainment Zone

on Powell Street from the Embarcadero to Beach Street,

the Embarcadero from Powell to Taylor Street,

Taylor Street from the Embarcador to Jefferson Street, Jefferson Street from Taylor to Hyde Street,

Beach Street from Hyde to Polk Street, Polk Street from Beach to North Point Street,

North Point Street from Polk to Larkin, Larkin Street from North Point to Beach Street,

Beach Street from Larkin to Powell and Al Skoma Way,

and affirming the Planning Department's determination under CEQA.

Thank you so much, and I believe we have Supervisor Sauter's Chief of Staff, Tita Bell Hill, here to present.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Walton.

Good morning, Vice Chair Sherrill and President Mandelman, Tita Bell, Chief of Staff to Supervisor Danny Sauter.

Today, I am pleased to present for your consideration a proposed ordinance establishing the Fisherman's Wharf Entertainment Zone.

Fisherman's Wharf is a place that needs no introduction. It has long been one of San

Francisco's most iconic destinations, known for its rich history, stunning views, and beloved

attractions. The wharf welcomes more tourists than any other neighborhood in the city. It is also the

center of our city's historic fishing industry. But coming out of the pandemic, we've seen a number

of Fisherman's Wharf storefronts sit empty.

Patches of the area were missing the energy

that defines San Francisco.

So this led to a concerted effort

by the Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District

to brainstorm on ways to breathe new life

into this neighborhood.

And one of them is the creation of an entertainment zone.

The CBD believes that an entertainment zone

would allow them and their partners

to program events, live performances,

and cultural activations that encourage people to stay longer, explore further, and return

again and again to the wharf.

The CBD plans to introduce dynamic programming designed to attract both tourists and locals.

The goal is to strengthen the wharf's role as a vibrant gathering place, increasing foot

traffic, boosting revenues for local businesses with to-go alcoholic beverages, and ensuring

that San Francisco residents see the wharf not just as a visitor destination, but as

one of the city's premier cultural and entertainment districts.

In the new entertainment zone, the CBD hopes to hold things like their annual wharf fest,

which is a chowder competition, a Fisherman's Wharf retail and dining showcase, the Peer

Party at the Wharf concert series, a fresh fish market, Fisherman's Expo, Farmer's Market

crafts markets, night markets, bar crawls, and things of that nature. They have been engaging

in thoughtful discussion around a management plan and a security plan for the entertainment zone.

In the past few months, they've conducted outreach and a community meeting, and they have the support

of the port, SFPD Central Station, the SF Chamber of Commerce, Fishermen, and Tell High. Our office

is very excited about the proposed entertainment zone and would appreciate the committee's

support in sending this ordinance to the board, the full board, with recommendation.

I'm available for questions and the executive director of the Fisherman's Wharf CBD, Bree

Maughan, is also available to answer any questions as well as staff from OEWD.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Seeing no, President Madam.

Thank you, Chair Walton. I'd just like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you so much, President Mendelman. Supervisor Sherrill.

I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor, please.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair Sherrill.

Seeing no other comments or questions from colleagues, we will now call for public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should allow them to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

Good morning.

My name is Bree Maughan.

I'm the Executive Director of the Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District.

Thank you very much for having us today, and thank you for considering this legislation.

The core purpose of the Fisherman's Wharf CBD is to promote, advance, and maintain Fisherman's

Wharf as a world-class destination.

We do this through our cleaning and safety and hospitality services.

We do this through all of the events that Tita just noted, as well as our steadfast support

for our small business community.

And one thing that we learned this year is that visitorship is rising, it's back, which

is great, but it is not translating to revenue for our small businesses.

And another thing that we've learned is that entertainment zones citywide have become not

only social drivers, but economic drivers too.

So I'm here just to share a support from our entire community of resounding support and also a request that you will recommend this to the full board.

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this matter?

There are no additional speakers.

Thank you.

Seeing no additional speakers, public comment is now closed.

And I'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with recommendation and also would like to be added as a co-sponsor.

yes on that motion

vice chair cheryl cheryl aye member mandelman aye mandelman aye chair walton aye walton aye

that motion passes without objection thank you motion carries mr clerk please call item number three

Yes, item number three.

Hearing to consider appointing one member term ending March 1, 2028

to the In-Home Supporter Services Public Authority.

One seat, one applicant.

Thank you.

And our applicant is Quixote Clark.

Is Quixote here to come and tell us about themselves

and why they want to serve this morning?

Thank you for coming in.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Yes, I'm Keontae Clark, and I'm here in attendance this morning.

And I was asked if I would like to be a part of the IHSS Supported Services Governing Body.

I am currently a part of the MDC, the committee with the Mayor's Disability Council.

And I would actually like to accept that appointment.

And I am a San Francisco native.

I've been here all my life.

And I have a lot of admiration for my city.

I have a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience being here all my life.

And I have a lot of compassion for the residents in my community.

and I just want to be able to, you know, give more and be of service to my community and to my city.

And I just want to be able to be allowed that opportunity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no comments or questions from colleagues, we will go to public comment on this item.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this matter?

There are no speakers on this matter.

Thank you.

Seeing no speakers, public comment is now closed.

And I would just like to say thank you for your service on the MDC

and would like to move this item forward to the full board with recommendation.

Yes, on that motion,

it's a recommendation for Keontae Clark to seat nine with recommendations.

on that motion, Vice Chair Sherrill.

Sherrill, aye.

Member Madelman. Aye.

Madelman, aye. Chair Walton. Aye.

Walton, aye. That motion passes without objection.

Thank you. Motion carries.

Congratulations. Thank you all for your time

and I appreciate you all. Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, please call items

four through seven together.

Yes. Item number four is a motion

appointing Supervisor Chen as an alternate

to the California Association

of Counties term ending December 1st,

2026 or the conclusion of her term as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Item number five is a

motion appointing Supervisor Chen as a member of the Children's Family First Commission term ending

October 8, 2026 or the conclusion of her term as a member of the Board of Supervisors. Item number

six is a motion appointing Supervisor Chen to the San Francisco International Airport Community

Roundtable for an indefinite term or the conclusion of her term as a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Item number seven is a motion appointing Supervisor Chen as an alternate member to the Association of Bay Area Government Executive Board term ending June 30, 2027, or the conclusion of her term as a member of the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you so much, and I don't see any questions or comments from colleagues, so Mr. Clerk, would you please call for public comment on these items?

Yes.

members of the public who should speak on this on these items should line up to speak at this time

each speaker will be allowed two minutes are there any members of the public would like to

comment on this matter on these matters there are no speakers on these matters thank you seeing no

speakers public comment is now closed mr clerk i would like to make a motion to approve all these

appointments from items four five six and seven and forward these to the full

board with recommendation yes on that motion vice-chair Cheryl Cheryl aye

member Madelman man I'm an eye chair Walton aye all tonight that motion

passes without objection thank you motion carries mr. clerk I'm gonna call for a

two-minute recess yes we are on a two-minute recess thank you

Thank you.

San Francisco Government Television.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now resume our regular February 9th,

2026 rules committee meeting.

Mr. Clerk, would you please call item number eight?

Item number eight is ordinance mending

the administrative code to prohibit the use of city property

without the city's authorization except for uses traditionally available to the public without authorization.

Prohibit any city officials or employee from authorizing the use of city property

if that use would disrupt city operations or discourage access to city services

unless the use furthers a city purpose,

stating that civil immigration enforcement is not a city purpose,

and authorizing the city attorney to bring a cause of action against anyone that uses city property

for an unlawful or unauthorized purpose.

There is a request that this matter be sent out as a committee report.

Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk, and we are joined by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.

Supervisor Mahmood.

Good morning, Chair Walton, and thank you for hearing this item today,

and I want to thank my colleagues on the Rural Committee as well for your time.

I also want to thank the partners who helped shape this legislation,

many of whom are here this morning.

Supervisor Chen, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, SF Rising, Chinese for Affirmative Action,

the San Francisco Latino Parity and Equity Coalition, and the Arab Resource and Organizing Center,

along with many labor and community advocates.

Their expertise made this legislation possible and kept it grounded in the reality that families are facing today.

This ordinance is straightforward.

Ensuring city property is used for city purposes

and that our public buildings remain safe and accessible to the people they're meant to serve.

We've seen what happens when immigration enforcement activity occurs at or near public facilities.

People stop coming.

They cancel medical appointments.

Kids miss school.

Families avoid applying for benefits.

Witnesses hesitate to report crimes.

When that happens, the city can't do its job.

While immigration enforcement is federal policy, the consequences are local.

Showing up in our clinics, our classrooms, and our communities.

In San Francisco, where immigrants are a critical part of our workforce, our small businesses, and our families,

that chilling effect undermines public health, public safety, and economic stability.

We've worked hard to rebuild trust between residents and city services, and this is about protecting that trust.

This approach has helped spark a coordinated regional effort across the Bay Area.

jurisdictions including Santa Clara County, San Jose, the city of Santa Clara, Oakland,

and Richmond have all taken steps to align with this model that we helped create and ensure their

public facilities remain safe and accessible for residents. That regional alignment matters

because fear doesn't stop at the city boundary and access to services shouldn't depend on which

side of a county line someone lives on. What this ordinance does is set clear guardrails.

City property must be used for a city purpose, and assisting federal civil immigration enforcement

is not a city purpose. Uses that disrupt services or discourage residents from accessing them

are no longer allowed, and the city attorney has the direct authority to act when city property

is being used in ways that interfere with our mission.

I want to note that this does not regulate the federal government

or change federal law.

It simply governs how we manage our own facilities,

which is our responsibility as a city.

At its core, this is about trust.

When someone walks into a city building,

they should feel safe seeking services and not afraid.

Finally, I want to thank our co-sponsors,

Chair Walton and Supervisors Chen, Malgar, Sauter, and Fielder for their leadership and partnership on this effort.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

President Madelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmoud.

Please add me as a co-sponsor.

Thank you, President Madelman.

Mr. Clerk, would you please call for public comment on this item?

Yes, members of the public, we should speak on this item.

She'll line up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Lucia Obregon.

I'm the Director of the San Francisco Latino Parity and Equity Coalition.

I represent 20 organizations that serve the Spanish-speaking monolingual

and bilingual residents citywide.

I want to thank Supervisor Mahmoud for introducing this legislation

and for your willingness to collaborate with us and hear our feedback.

This is really important to us in this moment and in this time.

We saw this weekend the magic of San Francisco, and we showed that to the world.

But there's a big part of our community who don't get to enjoy that because of fear.

And so besides this being just an administrative code, not just an administrative code, but administrative code,

this sends a message to our migrant residents of San Francisco.

It's a message of trust.

It's a message that says, we are here for you.

We're going to do what we can to protect you.

and this is just a first step of what I hope many other steps that we can take together

to continue to protect our community, to send that message of trust

and for those residents that bring so much value to our city

that they can come out into public spaces, that they can come and receive services.

This is very important and I just again want to extend my gratitude

to Supervisor Mahmood and the sponsors for taking this crucial step.

Thank you.

Good morning, Supervisors, and that was beautifully said.

I'm Carolyn Goosen from the Public Defender's Office,

here to speak in strong support of this legislation.

I want to thank Supervisor Mahmood and your aides, Jessica and Sam,

for all of your work on this and for working together with our office on it.

and to Supervisors Chen, Melgar, Sauter, Fielder, Walton, and Mandelman, thank you for your co-sponsorship.

San Francisco works best when all of our neighbors, friends, and family members can move through the city without fear,

and this ordinance reinforces that vision by making clear that city property cannot be repurposed in ways that create fear

or undermine the trust of our communities that they place in public institutions.

We have seen the fallout when immigration enforcement appears near places where people gather.

It forces people into isolation and damages the fabric of community life.

Our public spaces must remain places where people feel welcome and safe, not fear that they could become sites of detention or separation.

The ordinance also draws an important boundary.

Federal immigration enforcement is not the work of a city government committed to care, fairness, and service delivery.

Our buildings, our workforce, and our resources are not tools to carry out policies that divide families or silence communities.

At the Public Defender's Office, our immigration unit sees the human cost of detention and deportation every day.

People are taken from their families with little warning, held in remote facilities, and forced to navigate a system where due process is far from assured.

When community members worry that entering a city building could place them or their families in that pipeline,

they withdraw from essential services that support their stability.

Families stop getting the help they need, and communities carry the weight of that loss.

This ordinance is an important step towards ensuring that all of our residents feel safe in our city

and supported by our local government.

Thank you so much for your support.

Good morning.

My name is Annie Lee, and I work at Chinese for Affirmative Action, or CAA,

which is a community-based civil rights organization located in San Francisco's Chinatown.

Chinatown is home to a vibrant community, and four out of every five residents in Chinatown

is an immigrant.

We work with those communities to help them with immigration paperwork as well as job placement,

So we get to hear every day from community members about how frightened they are of federal immigration enforcement.

That is why we appreciate Supervisor Mahmood's leadership in introducing this legislation,

which will protect city property from being commandeered for any purposes that disrupt operations and our city values.

And luckily in this city, sanctuary is a value and protecting our immigrant communities is a value.

I'm proud to be a San Franciscan because our city is home to hundreds of thousands of immigrants throughout Asia,

including China, the Philippines, India, Taiwan, Vietnam, and we also have so many brothers and sisters from Latin America as well as Africa.

Immigrant safety must be a San Francisco priority because immigrants are our neighbors.

They are our friends. They are our students. They are our parents and grandparents.

They drive our buses and deliver our mail.

They open the shops and restaurants that we love.

They also take our temperature and our blood pressure when we're getting medical care.

They fix our homes, our cars, our computers.

Immigrants make up the very fabric of this city, which has long been a beacon across the world as a place of opportunity, freedom, and inclusion.

So we hope you all vote in favor of Supervisor Mahmood's legislation,

as well as other legislative efforts to make sure that this city defends our immigrant children,

parents, and grandparents.

Thank you.

Hi, Supervisors.

My name is Paloma Tracy, and I coordinate the SF Latino Parity and Equity Coalition.

I just want to take a second to echo what my colleague Lucia said

and to thank Supervisor Mahmoud for working with us on this legislation and really making an effort to include community.

And I just want to say that this is a super important first step in making sure that nobody's living in fear in their own home

and that in order to protect the long-term outcomes for immigrant communities, this is really essential.

and in turn the long-term outcomes of our city because we know that the

immigrant communities really keep it running and make it the vibrant amazing

place that it is. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to

comment on this matter? There are no additional speakers. Thank you. Seeing

no additional speakers, public comment is now closed and I just want to thank

Supervisor Mahmoud for bringing this forward. I'm definitely a proud co-sponsor

As stated in this legislation, enforcement of immigration law is not a city purpose.

And I want to be clear that we are a sanctuary city and let's all do our jobs, but most certainly does not entail discriminating against or harassing our immigrant community.

So thank you so much for bringing this forward.

And I would like to make a recommendation to move this forward to the full board.

I'd like to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Yes, on the motion to recommend as a committee report, Vice Chair Sherrill.

Sherrill, aye. Member Mandelman.

Mandelman, aye. Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye. That motion passes without objection.

Thank you. Motion carries.

Mr. Clerk, do we have any more business this morning?

That completes the agenda for today.

Thank you so much. We are adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.