Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our April 6th Rules Committee meeting.

I am your Chair Supervisor Shimon Walton, and I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Steven Sherrow as well as President Rafael Mandelman.

Today's clerk is Victor Young, and I want to thank Jamie Eschevery from SFGov TV for making sure this meeting is publicized and available to the public.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any announcements this morning?

Yes.

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

When your item of interest comes up.

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.yo N G at SFgov.org.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be included as part of the file.

May you also send your written communication via US mail to our office in City Hall 1, Dr.

Carleton B.

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

Please make sure to silence also phones and electronic devices.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of April 14th, unless otherwise stated.

That completes my initial announcements.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk, and I just want to remind the public and let everyone know that we will allow public comment for one minute so we can maintain quorum and make sure that we have everybody here to hear from the public today.

So public comment today will be one minute for each item.

With that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Item number one is a motion improving or rejecting the president of the Board of Supervisors, Raphael Maneman's nomination for the appointment of Lily Wong to the Board of Appeals for a term ending July 1st, 2028.

Thank you.

President Mandelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Um for considering this and uh Supervisor Cheryl for considering this nomination.

Um I've known Lily for some time.

Um there's a lot of talk in the city uh these days about the tensions between the east side and the west side of the city.

I think Lily is someone who actually bridges that gap pretty nicely, lives in District 9, works on the west side, um, has extensive background uh working um in the community, um uh uh as director of the Sunset Chinese Cultural District and Director of Community Engagement at the Wame School.

Um she has experience in land use and uh I think will bring uh both expertise to this position as well as um a background in uh in working with and hearing from the community, which I think is actually pretty important for especially the Board of Supervisors appointments to bodies like the Board of Appeals.

So I think she'll be uh great, which is why I am nominating her, and I hope you all will agree.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

And I know Ms.

Wong is here, so we'd love to hear from you and just tell us why you want to serve.

Thank you.

Sure.

Hello.

Okay.

I almost feel like I don't need to say anything since President Mandelman has said such nice things.

Um but good morning, supervisors.

Uh, thank you for considering my application, and thank you, President Mandelman, for your trust and confidence in me in this role.

Um, I'd also like to recognize uh President uh Trezvina as well as Director Lamar in the room today.

Um my name is Lily, and I am a lifelong San Franciscan.

Uh my family immigrated to San Francisco when I was two years old.

Um, and I grew up in the mission district.

Uh my family sought community services in Chinatown, um, and I'm a proud San Francisco Unified School District graduate.

Um, and I've had a fort uh the fortune to be educated, work, and live in San Francisco's uh in neighborhoods in San Francisco, all over San Francisco.

Um these experiences have given me a nuanced understanding of the diversity as well as the needs of the people in San Francisco.

I remained in the city for the majority of my life because I truly love this city.

This is a city that welcomed my family and helped me become the person I am today.

Um I learned English from strong black women at Raphael Well.

I developed views of justice through citywide organizing in the 1990s, and I came back after achieving my degrees intentionally to create um to work in spaces to provide voices for the marginalized and overlooked people of the city.

Leading up to this hearing, I had the pleasure of speaking to former and current Board of Appeals members, and I've learned of their impressive backgrounds and got advice from their experience on this board.

From these conversations, I also saw what I could bring in as value added to this board.

What I can bring is the perspective of a community advocate and the experience I've had living and working in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco.

I have a master's degree in alternative dispute resolution from Pepperdine Law School, and I sought this degree purposely to learn how to solve problems before it reached the stage of litigation.

And I truly enjoyed my time mediating in the Los Angeles court system as part of this experience.

I am committed to listening and understanding where the community is coming from and giving folks a fair chance.

As an organizer, I know the importance of fighting for what is right despite the odds.

As an immigrant, I understand more culturally sensitive nuances between what people say and what people don't say.

And as a person, I'm committed to doing my very best in this role.

Before I wrap up, I also want to acknowledge my friends, colleagues, community, and especially my family.

These are the same people who I'll look to who have, and I will look to continue to hold me honest and accountable in this position.

I'm open to hearing or any questions that you may have from me.

Thank you so much.

And I don't see any questions or comments from colleagues.

So, Mr.

Clerk, let's go to public comment on this item.

And before we do that, I do want to acknowledge that we are also joined by Supervisor Danny Sauter this morning.

Yes.

Members of the public who should speak on this item.

She line up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed one minute.

Are there any members of the public who like to speak?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Good morning.

I'm John Tresvini.

I'm president of the Board of Appeals, and I just want to express my appreciation to President Mandelman and to you, Chairman, for holding this hearing and being able to move this process forward so uh Ms.

Wong can join the Board of Appeals.

Uh in addition to her uh generally being a proud product of our public schools, she's a graduate of Horace Mann, also a Lowell High School graduate, and her work at Pepperdine, I think is particularly important to the mission and work of our of our board.

And that is as Mayor Agnos calls it, we're the people's commission.

People have issues with permits, either they get one or they don't get one, maybe their neighbor gets one, and sometimes they're flummoxed by the bureaucracy, they end up at the Board of Appeals through no fault of their own, and they come and we and we listen to them.

We apply the law, but we we make sure that people are heard.

Uh and that is something that with with Ms.

Wong's uh background and experience, uh she will be very able to do uh as an ADR uh expert uh from Pepperdine Law School.

Uh I think her whole her whole life and career uh promote accessibility, accessibility for people, average San Franciscans to be able to come to City Hall and have and have their issues issues heard.

In particular, her work with the Sunset Chinese Cultural District, Chinese Reaffirmative Action and others really adds to the diversity and breadth of our work at the Board of Appeals.

So I appreciate uh your expertise uh appointment and uh appreciate your vote.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this matter?

No additional speakers.

See no other speaker's public comment is now closed.

And I'd like to make a motion to amend and remove reject strike rejecting and replace with approving and move this forward to the full board as a committee report.

Yes.

Um amended and recommended as amended as a committee report to approve.

On that motion, Vice Chair Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, I, Member Mandelman.

Aye.

Madam in aye.

Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Congratulations.

Mr.

Clerk.

Please call item number two.

Item number two is a resolution affirming the importance of keeping the independent civil civilian over site of the San Francisco Police Commission.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

Uh colleagues.

I brought this uh resolution here to the rules committee versus doing this for without committee reference because I wanted to really stress the importance of one maintaining uh independent commission oversight body for the police commission.

I think one of the things that we know is this is a trend that has been existing for many years now where people want to make sure that we hold law enforcement accountable while we support them in doing their jobs.

Um the property streamlining task force made one of the most heinous, backward moving, racist and ill-advised recommendations, proposing changes to the police commission's authority, and the removal of independent oversight over the department.

San Francisco's police commission exists because our communities demanded accountability.

Now a task force made up of all people in the majority with no diversity, wants to weaken the civilian oversight that took decades and too many lives lost to build.

We cannot let that happen.

We have seen too many lives lost and injuries at the hands of law enforcement to not understand that the Fox cannot guard the hen house.

Mario Woods, Alex Nieto, Sean Montesero, George Floyd, Brianna Taylor, just to name a few.

Unchecked harm to community erodes trust and widens the gaps between law enforcement and our communities.

It seems in some cases people forget some of the tragedies of the past and why we have the policies in place that we do.

Will it take more deaths?

Will it take more harm to people of color before we truly understand that independent oversight and law enforcement is and always has been necessary, and that many other municipalities understand and have policies or bodies in place to support that.

The proposed changes for the police commission will significantly alter how the police commission works.

The proposal would strip the police commission of its independence, take away its power to fire and hire police chiefs, and hand most all disciplinary actions to the decisions of the chief, which is extremely absurd.

This would most certainly cause more harm than good and is a major step backwards in the world of best law enforcement policies and practice.

I want to remind this board, I want to remind the public that San Francisco's very own police department was given marching orders to fix over 200 issues by the Department of Justice, all of which are not complete.

And though there were steps taken to be complete, and though we moved in the right direction, there's always always has been and still is so much work to do.

So this proposal to eliminate this independent oversight was arbitrary and made by a group of people who were not even charged with proposing these types of changes.

This in itself is unjust, inequitable, and in my opinion, a move with racist consequences.

Ask yourself who is being harmed and who is making the decisions.

Even Prop E committee member Ed Harrington stated the committee did not have the knowledge to step into something that involved.

And he is correct.

The committee overstepped its bounds and took on issues and items that were not reflective of their charge with this decision.

This has now led to some racist proposals, proposals that attack the growth of low-income communities and communities of color, and proposals that flat out ignore and eliminate democratic practices.

Dressing up harmful policies in the name of efficiency is harmful nonetheless and goes against all the strides we have made over the past few years.

These proposed changes are shameful and shocking to even be on the table here in San Francisco in 2026.

This resolution simply affirms the importance of keeping the independent civilian oversight of the San Francisco Police Commission.

And again, I brought this to committee so that everyone could understand the importance and the weight of this proposal and how much harm and mistrust something like this would cause between law enforcement and community.

I want to thank Supervisors Jackie Fielder, Connie Chan, and Cheyenne Chin for their co-sponsorship of this resolution.

President Metelman, did you have some comments or questions?

I do uh thank you.

Um I uh I do have a different view of the recommendations of the of the task force as they relate to the police commission.

I'm not sure they are wise in all cases.

Um I don't know that they are heinous or racist.

Um there are many pieces of this resolution that I certainly can support.

As an example, the last resolve clause, that any reform affecting police governance should proceed only through a transparent public process that includes expert consultation, stakeholder engagement, and full consideration of the long-term implications for community trust and public safety is I think like unimpeachably correct.

And I don't actually think that we have time between now and basically the month from now by which we're going to have to introduce something making some of the Prop E commission's changes.

So that's not going to be in anything that I introduce, and I don't am I mean we'll see what our colleagues want to want to do with it, but I don't imagine that anybody's going to uh put something about police discipline into a charter amendment coming out of this uh board for for this November.

Um there are other pieces, though, of the recommendations of the task force that I I think are are correct.

Um taking as an example the ability of a mayor to hire and fire the police chief.

Um it seems to me uh that in olden times when the mayor appointed all of the members of the oversight bodies overseeing important city departments.

Um, having some distance between the mayor uh and those higher fire decisions maybe made some sense.

But what we saw in the Breed administration perhaps uh, you know, and I think not entirely uh her fault or the fault of her administration, um she lost uh a majority of her police commission.

There were there was different guidance coming from the mayor of the city of County and County of San Francisco and the Commission overseeing the police department, and I don't think that works.

Um, the mayor has put out uh a ballot measure that is gathering signatures uh right now that uh would give uh would give future mayors um authority to hire and fire the head of the police department, and I you know think that that's a good thing.

Um my concern is I can't vote for this uh resolution as it currently uh is written, insofar as it is plainly opposing uh things that I I think are good policy.

Um I think there is also a question on the autonomy of the police commission, which is an independence and autonomy of the police commission.

Absolutely important for police discipline.

Um we do not want uh police commissions dispensing discipline to uh members of the police department with the fear that if they make a politically unpopular call, they're gonna get fired the next day.

I mean that's my view.

Um I I think um uh uh independent authority for the commission is important to that end, and I wouldn't want us to do anything to change that in our Board of Supervisors ballot measure.

Um are we, I think gonna do much around the independence around policymaking, but I'm not actually entirely sure that the police commission should be independent of the mayor in setting policy for the police department for the same reasons I just said.

I think we look to the mayor to be the chief executive of the city.

We assume that the police department will generally be implementing the policies of the mayor that we've selected.

And if we have commissions that are doing things that are sort of diametrically opposed to what a mayor wants in terms of public safety, I do think that's a problem.

So I don't know exactly where that leaves me with this resolution.

I could, if the if the author is interested, like try to come up with some amendments that um would reflect kind of the things I've said, which is general agreement that there ought to be lots of discussion of any possible changes, but I'm not sure I agree, and I I definitely don't agree in all the details of, for example, higher fire of the police chief.

That's kind of where I am.

Supervisor Shiro.

Uh thank you, Chair Walton.

Um I think in short, I would echo uh President Mandelman's comments almost to a T.

I especially agree with him and with this resolution on the element of the disciplinary authority for the Commission.

I think keeping the Commission in charge of disciplinary authority is incredibly important.

However, there are otherwise, you know, I think I would again echo President Mandelman's comments and I would be very happy to entertain uh amendments to this or adjustments uh that are perhaps a little more targeted.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Sheryl.

So just a couple of points to note because uh I'm definitely not here to have a debate on mayoral power at this point.

Um the resolution is about the importance of independent civilian oversight of the police commission.

Um you can feel when somebody says that we want the chief to make decisions about discipline that that doesn't have racist connotations.

But the people who get killed by police officers in communities look like me.

So to take away that oversight is telling me people are okay with people that look like me being murdered by police.

It 100% says that.

And this was an all-white body that made that decision in 2026 in San Francisco.

There's no way we should ever have a body making decisions for an entire city that is all white.

That is ridiculous in 2026 in San Francisco.

So even if I agree with everything that came out of this, it is very upsetting that we would even put something in place like that.

It is disrespectful to the work that people have done for so many years to make sure that we respect the diversity in this city.

But this resolution is not about taking away mayoral power, it's not about the you know who has more power on this commission.

It's really about saying we support the independent oversight of the commission.

There are several clauses in here.

It's a resolution.

I mean, I know for a fact you guys don't decide dissect every resolution and the language in every clause in every resolution.

We just don't do that.

This is not binding.

This is a statement saying we, as a Board of Supervisors, at the very least agree that there should be independent oversight over the police commission.

So you can feel that there's no racist connotations because your people are not being killed, but mine are.

And not just in San Francisco, across the country, and that's why so many police departments have put independent oversight in place to make sure that while our officers are doing their job, they're also protecting community and respecting diversity when they go in community.

And this is what this resolution, not law, not ordinance, is about.

I don't see any other questions or comments, so we will go to public comment on this item.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item.

Should I have to speak at this time?

Each speaker will be allowed one minute.

Good morning, uh rules committee.

Griffin Lee here representing connected SF staff.

Did not get the green light to represent our membership on this one.

I I firmly believe and we believe that this is added government bloat.

How are we going to keep the police commission held accountable with more people coming to them and not understanding who's actually making decisions?

This isn't about racism.

This isn't about heinous ass.

This is about accountability and about reducing government bloat.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other speakers on this matter?

Hello, and good morning, everyone.

My name is Susanna Rojas, and I am here in support of the resolution as someone who has had to witness a family, watch the video of their son being shot by the police.

It is super important that we have this body to be able to have a second voice and to have accountability and balance.

When you don't have the balance is when mistakes happen.

And it is important that we haven't had a shooting like that in almost 10 years in the mission, and I want to see that continue to happen.

Thank you.

Any additional speakers on this matter.

There are no additional speakers.

Thank you.

Seeing no additional speakers.

Public comment is now closed.

President Mendelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

You know, I think I think we do have some disagreements about the role we want the police commission to play and how we want it to operate.

I also think we agree on a lot of the things that are in this resolution.

I am not prepared today to vote to forward this to the full board.

I would like the opportunity to like see if I can address the concerns that I have about the resolution through amendments.

And if that does not, you know, so weaken the resolution that it loses the support of the of the author.

So I would ask for a week to try and come up with potentially amendments that would uh well for one instance take out the the uh references to higher fire authority for the mayor and things like that while reaffirming the importance of an independent police commission.

Um if that's something you're that the chair is interested in, um, I'm happy to try to do that over the next week and would ask for a one-week continuance.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

I am okay with continuing this and having more discussion.

Um, but at the end of the day, whether we come up with language that we agree on or not, I think it's a horrible precedent for us not to come out against this all-white committee making recommendations that are going to be harmful to communities of color.

And you mark my words, whether I'm here or not after January, if something like this was to happen in this city, it would be worse.

It would be worse for law enforcement and for our communities to support something like that.

And I have to continue to stress the ridiculousness of having a all-white committee in San Francisco in 2026.

And so when you say words like heinous don't fit, you've got to be kidding me.

That's intentional.

You intentionally sit there and see a committee made up of no diversity make decisions.

That's not an accident.

President Mendelman.

Uh the only other thing that I would say is that in terms of the practical implications, I mean, I will work on um some possible amendments uh for a week from now.

Um, in terms of the measure that we are working on with the city attorney that would be uh implementation of the proper task force, we are I am not, as I said, intending to include the recommendations around police discipline that the um that the that the task force recommended.

I definitely appreciate that and definitely understand that, President Mendelman.

I also think that sometimes you have to take stances and sometimes you have to remind people of the harm that has been done in communities and why these bodies exist.

And even though some people think it adds to bureaucracy and it makes it harder to make decisions, these bodies were put in place really to make sure that we follow best practices and policing and not just in the police commission but other commissions.

So people can think everything is arbitrary because it moves not at a pace that they want to.

But when life and death are part of it, we have to make sure that we're making the right decisions, and we can't let harmful policies be acceptable just for efficiency, Mr.

President.

Heard.

Um I'd like to move that we continue this item one week.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, move to continue this item to Monday, April 13th.

Yes, on the motion to continue the matter to April 13th on that motion.

Vice Chair Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl, I member Mendelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I, Chair Walton.

Uh.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Item number three is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the fire code technical depart advisory council to evaluate and advise the board of supervisors, the mayor and the fire department on the criteria and types of evidence the fire marshals should consider in determining whether to waive, modify, or delay certain compliance requirements under the fire code that certain existing high-rise residential buildings have sprinkler systems and to set forth the membership and duties for the fire code technical advisory council.

Thank you so much.

Supervisor Cheryl.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

I think many of you in the are in the audience for this for this issue.

And I want to say that I appreciate you all being here.

You all are here because you're here about your livelihoods.

You're here about your homes.

And you're here because something is in place that maybe doesn't make sense.

In 2016, when this sprinkler retrofit was first pursued, a budget and legislative analyst report came out that basically said this is going to be very costly, that it's going to be hard to do.

And so the measure was tabled for six years.

Now, we're expecting a new budget and legislative analyst report to come out, first draft in the coming days.

We expect that to have more analysis on what types of buildings do see fires, types of construction.

Where does the data point us?

And I think that's why we're here today to talk about a technical advisory committee.

We're here to talk about data.

We're here to include experts in the conversation.

I think as we move forward here in San Francisco, it's incredibly important to us to base our decisions on the facts on the ground.

If we're going to achieve a city that is easier for people to live in across generations, to start their lives, their families, their careers here, to grow here and to stay here across generations.

And I see a multi-generational audience today.

We have to be smart.

We have to be smart about fire safety.

We have to be smart about affordability, and we have to be smart about where we're going to put the city's resources.

And so I want to thank you all for being here today.

I especially want to thank the fire department for being here today and for engaging this process.

And as we move forward with this technical advisory committee, I'm encouraged to see so many different ones of my colleagues stepping forward and engaging in this process.

And I looked forward to having their support on this issue and going forward, because affordability does mean building new housing.

But it also means allowing people to stay in the homes that they have.

Now we already strengthened tenant protections significantly last year.

But for many of you, that didn't help.

That didn't do anything.

And so I think we have to still stand up and say what is the right thing for safety, what is the right thing for affordability, what is the right thing for you and your families?

Because at the end of the day, government is here to serve you and not the other way around.

And if you can't be here in San Francisco, what is the point?

So thank you all for being here today.

I know you're going to make your your voices heard.

Um I think before that happens, we're going to hear maybe from the fire department.

Is that correct, Chair Walton?

We definitely are.

So I just want to say thank you to all of you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sherrill.

And I see we have Oh, sorry, Supervisor Sauter, my apologies.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you, Supervisor Sherrill, for those words and all of your work on this issue.

Um just want to briefly um echo that sentiment and thank everyone for being here.

I know we've had uh conversations um going back months now in chambers like these and um in lobbies of apartment buildings and in our office and um appreciate all the work that you've put into this, just making sure that um we know and uh and all of our colleagues know that this is a critical issue.

Um I think what we're doing here frankly should have been done a few years ago as this was passed or in the conversation of it being passed in the first place.

And that 2016 BLA report that Supervisor Cheryl mentioned really um should have been uh we should have followed that path, which said, you know, be very careful if you do this at all.

Um but different time, different board.

Um we're here now, we're trying to make this right.

Uh I think pairing this with the extension that we passed a few weeks ago begins to set us in a better direction, and I'm looking forward to um the work of this particular council and all of the insights that they're going to bring.

Again, I think things that should have been done years ago, um, but we're doing it now, and I appreciate the fire department um their partnership in this and trying to make this right.

Um I'll leave it there for now.

Thanks.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

And I know we have Chief Dean Crispin here this morning.

Good morning, Chief.

Good morning, members of the committee, Dean Crispin, Chief of Department.

Uh we as the fire department like to speak in support of this ordinance to uh develop a TAC.

Um the existing ordinance provides broad authority for the fire marshal to um determine hardship, and we've been trying to fine-tune that with some of the conversation with Supervisor Cheryl and Souter, and thank you very much for your leadership and your guidance on this.

Um what we've added is the financial hardship piece, which is in the latest amendment to legislation as well as heart as well as displacement.

But I think those are challenging things to quantify, and that's the value of this technical advisory council.

Is this a group of important stakeholders with a lot of different varied uh interests and knowledge that can provide guidance to the fire marshal to make these very challenging and difficult decisions?

So again, uh the broad of uh uh um availability of the uh fire marshal to be able to make these decisions is going to be assisted greatly by this technical advisory council and we really appreciate your guidance in allowing us to develop this council should this move forward.

So we speak in support fire marshal law is here to answer any questions, if you may on them.

Thank you so much, Chief.

Um I I do have a just a couple of questions right now.

The the first one is what exactly does this tech have the ability to change the law?

No, it's an advisory council.

So they will advise the fire marshal given data that they collect and the conversations they have amongst the eleven members and provide recommendations to the fire marshal who has the ultimate authority.

But the fire marshal still makes the decision on the Yes.

And then because there are some things in here that I appreciate, and so I'm wondering, and you kind of touched on this.

How are we going to determine financial hardship?

And I asked that because we also understand that this law was put in place, of course, to make sure that we save lives and keep people safe.

So how are we determining what financial hardship is going to look like?

I think that's an excellent question, Supervisor.

And I think uh once the fire marshal at fire marshal and I entered our positions, we started evaluating the ordinance and seeing where we could improve it and make it more sensible, and through the assistance of the two supervisors, we were able to include financial hardship, but determining exactly what financial hardship is going to be challenging, and that's what these 11 members of the council are designed to be formed is to determine what financial hardship is.

Now, the criteria that they use, I think is still to be determined.

And how are they selected?

So there's uh members selected by different groups, it's actually spelled out in the ordinance.

I'm happy to read it if if that helps.

No, I I just from a practical standpoint.

If we're going to have the committee develop what a hardship is, that is concerning going into setting up the tech without really understanding what that criteria, what that formula may look like, because I think that's an important piece of this particular piece of legislation.

Understood.

And those are my only questions for now, Chief.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

We will go to public comment on this item.

I know everyone is here uh waiting to speak on this item.

Yes, members of the public.

We should speak speak on this item should line up now along the side by the windows.

Each speaker will be allowed one minute.

There will be a soft chime when you have 30 seconds left and a louder chime when your time has expired.

Okay, my name is Joyce Glick.

I am actually a doctor of physical therapy, 78 years old.

And I just want to say I appreciate Cheryl and Louder and all the board looking at this.

Um I want you to know this is a hardship for everybody.

There are 141 buildings, 20,000 residents, all of whom I've been providing health care for 50 years to our medical community, still am in all diverse communities of Tendriloin, um Chinatown, everywhere that's who I am.

And the only reason I'm affected by this is that I live in one of the buildings.

And yes, this is a hardship.

I still work because I want to stay in San Francisco.

I love this city, but there is no way I can afford, even if I'm working and I'm middle class, afford uh to pay this kind of $3300,000 for sprinklers, and I feel like my building is very safe.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, rules committee.

Griffin Lee, Connected SF staff, uh representing staff and membership.

Um a couple of questions.

You know, uh Chief Crispin um mentioned various different groups uh forming to get to this point uh to form a council.

Are these special interest groups or is the everyday citizen representative of this council?

Why isn't why aren't we just asking the questions and uh leveraging the fire commission to come up with the new policy?

Um thinking about public safety.

Yes, this could lead to hazardous conditions or hazardous disaster by not implementing this this code.

But on the flip side, I think we have to think about displacement.

If this were to actually go through and be a burden to the residents here in this room and beyond, how many people would be actually displaced?

That's also public safety risk.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

My name is Ed Fish.

I live in one of the affected buildings, and I wanted to talk this morning for a second about the composition of TAC as I understand it.

Rather than uh a council of truly independent experts, there are going to be two seats reserved for the labor unions because of their financial interest.

Their inclusion as voting members of TAC creates a shocking and outrageous conflict of interest and destroys any legitimacy the committee may otherwise have enjoyed.

Thank you.

I'm Max Isaacman, and I live in the Comstock.

The residents of San Francisco are offset, are affected by this mandate.

Many of them, including me, are seniors.

Well, we're suffering because of this mandate.

We don't want it.

Depression, not sleeping, blood pressure, grief, anxiety.

I mean, I hear it all the time from us.

We're the people, I mean the people I talk to, and we don't want to move.

We don't want this mandate.

San Francisco is the only major city that has a sprinkler mandate.

They don't sprinklers don't stop fires.

California does not have a mandate.

Critics don't have a mandate.

Cities don't have a mandate because they're too expensive, too disruptive, not worth it.

We're suffering.

We want to cancel.

It's killed our real estate market.

San Francisco is the only city with this.

Speaker time has elapsed.

Thank you.

Well, I'll tell you, I've got about 10 or 20 cities here.

Thank you so much for your comments.

No major city does.

Hi, my name is Bob Cosma, and I want to support the formation of the Technical Advisory Commission.

I think that it's important that this PAC address the unresolved complex issues that remain in the fire code, particularly affordability.

When it comes to affordability, I think the TAC and everybody needs to look at the full complexity of the problem.

Let me give you an example.

Last summer, the board passed legislation on seismic uh upgrades for uh this very same buildings that are addressed by the fire code.

Those are voluntary.

Uh if installing expensive sprinklers means that uh upgrades for seismic upgrades will not be affordable, we're putting hundreds of lives and dozens of buildings at risk for and trade for fire sprinklers, where there may be alternative methods.

Speaker time has you.

Hi.

My name is Gail Geary, and I live at 2190 Washington Street.

When the sprinkler mandate was passed, I don't think its impact was fully assessed.

This is why.

My 91-year-old friend lives at 66 Cleary Court.

She has lived there for almost 30 years.

She is a widow, uses a walker, and is on a fixed income.

Her family does not live in San Francisco.

Please put yourself in her shoes.

Imagine her financial hardship in paying for the sprinklers to be installed.

Imagine her physical hardship in having to move to temporary housing if she can even find it, and who's going to pay for that?

Imagine her emotional hardship, having her life disrupted, having to pack up and move, dealing with uncertainty at a time in her life when she is dealing with other issues.

Now, multiply that story by hundreds, even thousands of San Franciscans, including me.

TAC is essential.

Please put it into place.

Thank you.

I'm Jim Edlin from 66 Cleary Court, and I want to urge three changes to the ordinance.

One, retitle it a feasibility analysis council rather than purely technical, make it explicit that it consider human and financial concerns as well as technical.

Two, add a seat on the Council for an economist, experienced in cost-benefit analysis, and three, uh have the council report its findings not to the fire department, but to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor.

Thank you.

And the public.

Hi, my name is Jeff Lyons, and I'm in an affected building.

Affordability has become the new watchword in American politics.

My hope is that it actually becomes a guiding principle for action, that elected officials actually pass laws and eliminate mandates that truly make San Francisco and California affordable.

Affordability is the primary reason why people are leaving California for places like Texas and Florida.

It is the reason why blue states will lose more congressional seats and votes in the Electoral College at the next census.

This will make it more difficult for Democrats to hold Congress and to win presidency in the future.

Please make affordability an action plan, not just a watch word.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Victoria Pons.

I'm a resident at the Hamilton in the tenderline.

I'm also a recipient of down payment assistance from the mayor's Office of Housing.

The residents in my building are governor government employees like myself, as well as retirees, teachers, and artists.

So I'd like to emphasize that this mandate will cause extreme financial hardship on me and my community.

I ask that this committee expand the proposed technical advisory committee's mandate to thoroughly examine how the retrofit will financially and physically impact residents.

I also ask to delay implementation and enforcement until the TAC committee officially releases its findings.

Please help us keep our dream of living, thriving, and contributing to our city.

Thank you.

Good morning, members of the committee.

My name is Jennifer Gelbard, and I live in one of the buildings affected by the sprinkler mandate.

While we appreciate the extension, the $300,000 per unit burden still threatens to force seniors and families out of their homes.

We are open to compromises that make our building safer, and we thank the current fire department leadership for their willingness to find a path forward.

However, because this mandate was championed by a former official who immediately sought to profit from its enforcement, there is a painful appearance of corruption.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

To restore public trust, every member of the TAC must be required to fill out a Form 700 disclosure.

Please prioritize data and empathy over industry profits.

Do not put those who benefit the most from the most expensive options above the people of San Francisco.

Thank you.

My name is Velma Dean.

I live in the Fontana West.

I'm an 84-year-old, almost 85, retired school teacher.

And as I've uh some of you have heard me say before, I absolutely cannot afford a quarter of a million dollars on top of everything else that it cost me to live, and for which I have planned.

And as I've spoken to other people in this room, it's also becoming kind of a a sort of Damocles or water torture, if you will, dripping on us because we are all of us every day worried time has elapsed.

Threatened by this.

Thank you for for listening to us.

My name is Neil Bardak.

I'm president of the board at the Comstock.

I'm here on behalf of all my residents, 128 units, I think.

One, I just turned 80, and I empathize all the things that have been said about having to move and having to find funds to pay for this.

But more importantly, we have heard the word safety so many times in these hearings that I think this TAC ought to look at alternative means and methods that can get the firemen as safe as they can be.

Everyone in my building and everyone in this room applaud and admire the fire department and their people, and we care about safety, but this ordinance is not necessarily the only way to achieve that safety.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ellen Bowley.

I live in Fontana East, and I just wanted I support the committee, but I just want them to also address that some buildings pose low fire risk because they are constructed to reinforce concrete and other noncombustible materials.

So extensions also should be looking at that factor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Dan Rabinowitz.

I am the treasurer of 1070 Green Street, one of the affected buildings.

We strongly support the ordinance which is before you, and we urge its adoption.

I would respectfully suggest that it would be important for the Technical Advisory Committee to consider a holistic range of methodologies and approaches towards mitigating fire risk in these buildings, looking at their respective costs and benefits rather than simply focusing on the retrofitting of sprinklers.

There's more that can be done to increase safety at in a much more cost-effective fashion.

Thank you very much.

Hi.

My name is Alan Yarkin.

I am a board member of 2190 Broadway.

We are, I think, one of the affected buildings.

I would make uh two comments.

Comment number one: what may be affordable to me may not be affordable to other people in our building.

And I can tell you that in our building, if this were mandated, we probably would have four or five people who would be forced to leave the building.

Not right.

Not fair, not right.

Secondarily, you know, when I look at the ordinance, uh, I didn't see anything in the ordinance about actually looking at the construction of the building itself.

If you look at a lot of these buildings that were built that would be affected by this, they're cement buildings.

It would seem to me that a building that is a cement building uh doesn't necessarily need all of the requirements of uh uh uh a sprinkler system.

And then lastly, I would just say that we we need to be thoughtful about the speaker time has elapsed.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

Um my name is Sonny Peterson, I'm at 1050 uh North Point Street, Fontana West.

And uh I want to bring up, I appreciate that this board is reconsidering and paying attention to the issue that has been ignored for a long time before we even knew it existed.

So one thing.

My son is a fire chief in another state, and he I talked to him extensively about this.

There are so many other solutions than this.

And obviously, the last board was remiss when they passed this because they didn't look at those solutions.

But then you look at the people here today, and where are the people who are already affected by this by the an exemption does not work for us because it's already harm, that it can't remedy.

And I think we need to look at the other side of the coin and look at who will follow the money, who won when this was passed, who were the people who benefited, because it sure wasn't us.

And the second one is who is benefiting right now in terms of being a consultant in terms of being uh on a on a commission or on a board.

Look at who's benefiting down.

It's not us.

Thank you.

Good morning.

The sprinkler retrofit clause of the fire code is an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.

It is our hope that the TAC, relying on the BLA findings, recommends to repeal this law and recommends a complete redraft based on rational guidelines for, providing for affordable, effective alternatives to sprinklers.

It is also our hope or ask that the board instruct the City Attorney's Office to investigate the self-dealing, unethical conduct of members of the fire department, which stains their reputation and by extension that of this administration.

Thank you.

Hello, uh, as mentioned last time, my brother and sister had to move out of the city because of being unable to afford to live here.

I went to San Francisco State University after going to Washington High School, Marina Middle School, and elementary school here in the city, and I'm going to have to move out of the city.

And I would like to say that before getting a teaching credential, I was in construction.

And to say that this would cost anywhere anywhere near under 100,000 per unit to tear open a ceiling, to put in piping, hoping nothing goes wrong.

Nothing is ever on schedule or on budget.

And finally, hundreds of millions of dollars was misspent on drug treatment programs.

That's not our fault.

That's not our fault.

We shouldn't have to pay that.

If you really care about the firefighters, the city shouldn't mismanage their funds.

Pay for the why should we have to pay for it?

This is ridiculous.

I'm going to have to move out of the city and as it as I said last time, you should all be ashamed of yourself.

Hello, my name is Nadia Cierry.

I live in Fontana West.

This is my only home.

I live in Social Security.

I came to this country as a refugee with nothing.

I worked all my life until I retired.

And now I live in in a home which I love and I would love to continue living there.

As I said, I live in Social Security and I have some money put away for later for when I need help, when I need medical expenses paid, and so on.

And I cannot afford spending them on sprinklers which don't even which are not even proven to help in case of fire.

So what I would like to request is to repeal this law this mandate and also to uh look and open investigation into how it got onto the code, because this definitely doesn't smell right.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Sandra Garrido, I am a resident of one of the buildings affected.

And I've spent most of my life working in private sector.

And for any significant investment uh that you recommend to the board, you had to make significant uh technical analysis of risk benefits.

And if I had ever proposed to my board making a significant investment like this without those studies, I would have been fired.

So my message to you is that for every supervisor that supports passing this resolution without technical support, they should get fired.

Are there any additional speakers on this matter?

There's no more uh speakers for this matter.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

So no more public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

President Melleman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Um I want to thank uh Vice Chair Sherrill and uh Supervisor Sauter for uh the work you have done on this problem.

Um I feel terrible uh for all of the folks who have had to deal with the impacts, the unintended uh impacts of this legislation.

I think, or the original legislation, I think it was plainly, well, in my view, a well-intended effort to reduce fire risk in buildings where fire could be catastrophic.

I also think that in the effects, um, some one of the speakers mentioned cost-benefit analysis, and there are plainly going to be some buildings and some situations where a cost-benefit analysis is going to suggest that this does this is not um uh the a path forward.

Um I think that this is an elegant way of trying to tease apart the legitimate uh safety concerns and trying to to respond to um situations where sprinklers could make a building safer in a way that would not displace uh folks from their homes, while also recognizing that as originally passed, this legislation uh was not gonna be the right solution for all situations.

So I want to thank the fire of the fire chief and fire marshal for your willingness to engage around this.

I trust that you will continue to engage in this, balancing the costs and benefits as they are impacting real people in their actual homes, which they do not want to lose.

Um I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you, President Madam.

Um one I agree with President Madeline in terms of the fact that the original legislation had well intentions about really want to make sure that we pr prevent obviously major hazards from taking place, and we all know what could happen in in a major fire and a building that has several tenants.

I think that one of the things that is concerning for me as we talk about the Technical Advisory Council is making sure that when we do the cost-benefit analysis, that we have people who are really committed and thinking about what the negative effects could be from the legislation.

When we hear things like everyone would have a hardship, that gets concerning for me because I know that that is not and cannot be the case.

And comments like that make me think that everyone is not focused on making sure that we actually come up with best policy with the committee like this.

Our real estate market is not killed and will not be killed because of this policy.

But I do want to thank Supervisor Sherrow and Sauter for working with community to try to come up with something because I definitely can 100 percent agree that this would cause a hardship for some.

I think another thing that is a major concern for me, and I'm pretty sure my colleagues were well intended, but having a supervisor serve on a seat like this to me is completely inappropriate.

Um, we have oversight authority already, and I can't see when when a supervisor makes a recommendation to a fire commissioner, it doesn't seem like a recommendation.

So we have a committee, technical committee made up of constituents and a supervisor serving on that same committee.

That seems problematic to me.

Um because I know when I make a suggestion to city departments, they take it with utmost seriousness, and I don't know if that's fair to do that to people who work for the city, to have a supervisor serving on a technical advisory committee full of residents.

I I think that is very problematic.

Um I'm sure the intent was not to do anything that may look like the supervisor could be pushing something in a certain direction, but most certainly we don't typically do that on bodies like this.

In fact, I I don't know if I've seen one, President Mendelman.

Um I don't think I've ever seen that since I've been on the Board of Supervisors, but I think that is concerning.

Um but again, I want to appreciate the public for coming out and definitely understand a lot of the concerns.

Um Vice Chair Sherrill.

Well, to address your concern directly, I think the point of having a supervisor on this is to represent the residents.

I think every single resident here feels that they have not been represented.

That in 2022 they were not represented, and then in 2022, the Board of Supervisors did not even consider to notify them that this was under consideration.

Now, each individual supervisor, each individual, the 11 districts may have a different set of buildings in those.

Mine has a lot.

Supervisor Sauter has a lot.

But we don't have all of them.

And I think the concern here is that when I have met with the affected buildings, when I have met with the affected landlords, how many of you got notified that this was under consideration?

Furthermore, how many of you actually received the notification that this passed?

And so in the role of oversight on the Board of Supervisors, I think it's clear that the passive role of oversight has not worked in the past, and we need to take a more active role.

For too long, the Board of Supervisors had played a lot of role in oversight before the ink is dry, but then walked away once the ink dried.

Well, I'm not walking away.

Supervisor Sauter is not walking away.

And I think it's up to us to start looking at the data here.

Now, fire safety is incredibly, incredibly important.

But when we look at the data hoarding is a massive problem here in the city, and I want to commend Chief Crispin for standing up to address hoarding.

Lithium ion batteries, just in the paper today, massive problem.

And once again, Chief Crispin is taking a lead on this.

These are critical issues that are killing people each and every day here in San Francisco.

They are really, really important.

That's where the data shows us.

And if we're going to be smart going forward, we have to see that this is not the last time a mandate might be coming down the pipe.

Concrete is going to be a problem for a lot of buildings.

What are we going to do there?

Are we just going to say, here, solve a 1.8 billion dollar problem on your own?

Or are we going to sync up as a city and figure out how to address this?

You know, HR1 health care cuts, over 400 million dollars are coming down on our heads.

Have already.

And I think the mayor very smartly has said we're not going to have DPH bear these cuts alone.

We're going to take this as a whole city because we believe that health care is a value that we stand for.

I think that's a good idea.

And so I think we've got to be realistic about all these things and saying who are we going to throw the burden upon?

Who are we going to have the sword of Damocles waving over your heads?

And so for me, I think this is important for you.

You want certainty and you want speed.

You wanted to know yesterday what was going on.

And I can't deliver that for you.

The board can't deliver that for you.

But I think this is important to move on and move forward as quickly as possible.

With the knowledge that this is not exactly what you want.

And for anyone here who would have said the word repeal, I understand that.

And I regret that we can't deliver perfect for you today.

But as we go forward, I think it is incredibly important for us as a city to look at how we've been doing things in the past and make sure that the approach in the future is different, takes residents into account, and charts a path of safety based on data and based on effectiveness.

And with that, I'd like to, I'm sure my colleague Supervisor Sauter will say a couple words, but I'd like to move to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation.

Supervisor Souter.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, and thank you, Supervisor Sherrill, for all your leadership in this.

Um, just very briefly um wanna thank again everyone for for joining today for continuing to make your voice heard on this.

Uh I continue to to feel that um you know the city has let you down, particularly uh a few years ago, and we're trying to fix that.

Um I want to just mention because it it was invoked a few times um the the scope of this particular council and this body um and in addition to the focus, the the strong focus on uh hardship and financial means, this body is also going to be tasked with looking at some of the language that was passed but not necessarily defined uh a few years ago.

And I'm I'm talking about terms like reasonable degree of fire protection, alternative protection.

That's one that we've heard a lot, and one that I think there needs to be a lot more attention to, these alternative means and alternative protections, and then also the term not physically possible.

Uh and just uh for everyone's education, I want to quickly read through the 11 voting seats that are outlined in this ordinance.

Seats one through six being appointed by the Board of Supervisors, being a property owner slash building manager of an affected building.

Number two, a non-owner tenant.

Number three, a homeowners association representative.

Number four, a C16 fire protection contractor, number five, a construction professional, general labor or skilled trade.

Number six, an architect or structural engineer.

And then seats seven through ten, which are appointed uh from the corresponding body, seven, the controller's office, eight, the fire department, nine, department of building inspection, ten, public utilities commission, and then seat eleven Board of Supervisors member uh or designated legislative assistant.

And I think in whole, that is all the right stakeholders to get together and to make progress on this.

So again, um thank you for your time and thank you to this committee for hearing this.

Thank you, Supervisor Soder.

Um I definitely have to state and uh again I appreciate both Supervisor Sauter and Supervisor Shiro for trying to work on a solution that of course would um support residents and try to eliminate the hardships for some people.

Uh I do believe also that there are unintended consequences with putting a supervisor on a body like this.

I I agree you're here to represent your constituents.

Supervisor Sherrow.

Uh that's why you have six appointments or the board has six appointments.

Uh, you already represent.

But I think it's great that constituents feel having a member of the Board of Supervisors on a body when they agree on something is a great thing.

But as a policy, it's a horrible policy to start to put supervisors on committees that belong to the residents.

I just I just can't accept and understand that.

Um That alone is is a problem for me.

And with that, um Mr.

Clerk on the motion.

Yes, on the motion to recommend them uh the matter to the full board of supervisors.

Cheryl Aye.

Member Mannelman.

Aye.

Mattelman Aye.

Chair Walton.

No.

Walton, no.

That motion passes with uh Chair Walton, dissenting committee.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us this morning?

Uh that completes the agenda for today.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.