Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the May 11th, 2026 rules committee meeting.

I'm your chair of Supervisor Shaman Walton.

I'm joined by Vice Chair Steven Cheryl and Supervisor, of course, President Mandelman.

Today's clerk is Victor Young, and I want to thank Eugene Labadia for making sure that this meeting is publicized on television at SFGov TV.

And Mr.

Clerk, do we have any announcements?

Yes.

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

We are item of interest comes up and public comment is called.

Please line up to speak.

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

Email them to myself, the rules committee clerk at VICTOR.

Y-O-U-N-G at SFgov.org.

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

May also send your written comments via US mail to our office in City Hall 1.

Dr.

Carlton be good lit place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices.

Items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda of May 19th, unless otherwise stated.

That completes my initial announcement.

Thank you so much.

Would you please call item number one?

Item number one, motion to approving or rejecting the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of Jeanette Howard to the Treasury Island Development Authority Board of Directors for a term ending February 26, 2029.

Thank you so much.

And I know Jeanette is not here.

However, this is an appointment, a reappointment from the mayor's office, and she has had time to connect with colleagues as well as staff.

So we will go to public comment on this item if we don't have any objections.

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 will wish to speak on this matter?

There are no speakers on this matter.

Thank you so much.

Public comment is now closed.

I'd like to make a motion to move Jeanette Howard forward and remove amend and remove rejecting and replace with approved and move forward to the full board.

Yes, uh the motion is to amend to uh make the recommendation to approve and recommend as amended.

On that motion, Vice Chair Sherrill.

Aye.

Aye.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes.

Item number two is an ordinance mending the administrative code to create the downtown hospitality zone in the area bounded by Fifth Street from Folsom Street to Market.

Cyril Magnon Street from Market Street to Eddie Street, Eddie Street from Cyril Magden Street to Mason Street, Mason Street from Eddy Street to Ellis Street, Ellis Street from Mason Street to Taylor Street, Taylor Street from Ellis Street to Post Street, Post Street from Taylor Street to Mason Street, Mason Street from Post Street to Bush Street, Bush Street from Mason Street to Kearney Street, Kearney Street from Bush Street to Market Street, Mark Street from 3rd Street to 2nd Street, 2nd Street from Market Street to Folsom Street, and Folsom Street from 2nd Street to 5th Street, and affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

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

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

And I believe we have a presentation from Ben Van Houten, OED OEWD's director of nightlife initiatives.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Uh, Vice Chair Cheryl, Member Maneman.

Uh, good morning, Ben Van Houten from OEWD.

I have a short presentation.

Um appreciate your consideration of this item today.

Here we go, full screen.

Wonderful.

Um, this is an ordinance sponsored by Mayor Lurie to implement SB 395, which is state legislation that was adopted last year to support the creation of new restaurants in the downtown hospitality zone.

And we are requesting an amendment to this ordinance today that's been circulated and that I will uh discuss later in this presentation.

Uh a little bit of background on California liquor license law, uh, statewide.

Uh, the number of full liquor licenses available in each county is dictated under a uh population-based formula.

It's been that way for about 80 years, and San Francisco has exceeded that limit uh since that time.

Um, as a result, full liquor licenses for restaurants and bars in San Francisco are only available on the secondary market at prices uh well beyond the ABC application fee.

That that price fluctuates um uh quite a bit, but still remains um uh well beyond the application fee, even at its low marks.

Um these prices can be a significant barrier for operators without substantial financial backing, as well as those seeking to open businesses and spaces that require substantial tenant improvements.

Um, nightlife is critical to downtown's continued revitalization.

New restaurants uh alongside downtown's great existing nightlife can attract tourists and locals, diversify offerings, and help transform the area into a vibrant 24 7 neighborhood.

And there have been a suite of programs and policies launched uh in the last several years to support business attraction downtown.

Uh last year, the mayor sponsored SB 395, uh authored by Senator Wiener to enable San Francisco to establish a hospitality zone.

Um within that zone, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control would be authorized to issue up to 20 new non-transferable restaurant liquor licenses.

Uh licenses would be issued in phases over a three year period with 10 available the first year and five each subsequent year.

Uh licenses would be issued through ABC's annual license drawing process that is used to issue new licenses statewide.

Um licenses would be available at the ABC's application fee of around $20,000 compared to the secondary market prices, which uh uh currently are hovering in the 100 to $150,000 range.

Licenses would not be transferable to any other person or to any location outside the hospitality zone.

Um during the duration of this program upon the closure of a business with a hospitality zone license, that license would be canceled.

ABC would be authorized to issue a new hospitality zone license, but the entire thing would sunset in 2033.

After that point, a business with one of these licenses closes, that license is canceled and it's gone.

This ordinance uh fulfills the requirements of SB 395 to enable ABC to issue new licenses beginning later this year.

Uh, the ordinance would designate a hospitality zone with the boundaries that are referenced in the title to reflect the boundaries of the SPT FPD hospitality zone established last year.

Um, as introduced, the ordinance would authorize the issuance of up to those full 20 licenses, but we are requesting an amendment there.

Here's a visualization of the boundaries of the zone.

Um following discussion with existing downtown operators concerned about potential impacts, we are proposing to amend this legislation to authorize the issuance of up to 15 licenses instead of the maximum 20, with our intention being to monitor impacts of this program over the next two years before contemplating returning to the board with legislation to authorize the issuance of the remaining five licenses.

Um there's also one minor clerical amendment from the city attorney in this uh in the requested amendment as well.

I'm happy to read that language uh whenever uh appropriate.

And um, that is the conclusion of my presentation.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

Uh I do have one initial question, just I know for my office, and I know for some of my colleagues, there wasn't a full briefing on this policy.

Um, curious to know why that outreach wasn't done.

I uh apologize uh Chair Walton.

We we reached out to all of your staffs uh last week with the the uh uh opportunity to do a briefing, but I'm sorry that that didn't that didn't get to you and appreciate uh the consideration of this item anyway.

And because you just said it on record, you reached out last week.

That means we have would have had no time to understand the policy, understand unintended consequences, understand how this may affect other businesses, and you know why I bring this up because you know that there are concerns from small businesses in the community and in the area.

But for future, and this is for everybody, not you.

Please don't reach out to my office this the week of or week before and think that that is enough time to give a briefing.

And this is not personal for you, Ben, but this is something that I hope nobody ever makes the mistake of doing.

Well, I appreciate it, Chair Walton.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sherrow.

Um, yeah, ditto what Chair Walton said there.

Um, I'm gonna ask some questions that are pretty basic and dumb because I didn't get the briefing also.

Um here is that the idea behind this is to basically create an area where as people walk up and down the street, there are a bunch of different places to go and have a nice time.

Um yes, I think that's correct.

You know, in in discussing this with folks in Union Square over the last couple of years, I think that there was identified an opportunity to see additional restaurant growth in the Union Square area, and that um among the suite of incentives tool strategies that this would be one strategy to complement the rest of them to to encourage new full service restaurant development there.

How many spaces in the given area um could possibly house either a new restaurant or bar or something that would take one of these potentially 15 licenses?

Across the entire hospitality zone, um I'd be happy to get back to you with a specific number of retail spaces.

I mean, I think certainly, you know, we're we're confident and the our partners in the neighborhoods are confident that there is uh demand for these licenses, um, you know, and that there's a wide range of of vacant retail spaces that that either have been restaurants or could be restaurants in the future.

Um it would be great to understand what those numbers are because right now it feels like 10, 15, 20 is a bit of a finger in the air, and I do think we know how many spaces are potentially there.

Um in terms of um business in the neighborhood right now, do we have enough customers?

Um, you know, I think we have heard from uh including the the downtown operators who are here and other downtown operators that the the challenge is, you know, getting attracting more customers, right?

That the business and I want to acknowledge that, you know, hearing from them and others that the business has been incredibly challenging since the pandemic.

And um, you know, I think that in terms of business assistance for this sector, we want to have strategies to attract new operators and strategies to support existing operators, and both of them complementing each other.

Yeah, no, that's definitely true.

Having fewer empty storefronts is good for the people who are already there, no question.

Um what was the arguments between 20 10 15?

How did how was how are those um conversations had?

What was the flow of those conversations?

How'd we get to 15?

Yeah, um I know that the you know, in talking with existing operators, they had requested 10 in in terms of conversations that we've had with with downtown stakeholders who have felt confident that the full area can absorb all 20, that um 15 felt like a an appropriate compromise that you know provides some some clarity that this program is is rolling out over the next two years, but also um, you know, ensures that there's a moment of reflection, a moment a look back before we are able to pursue the the full 20.

So that that's the I think it's fair that that's the logic of reaching 15.

What's the price of these new licenses gonna be?

It's just under 20,000 is the application fee for ABC.

Is the application fee and the existing businesses there, what have they been paying for these licenses in the past?

Yeah, I mean it it it it ranges, but I think it's fair to say you know everything from a hundred to two hundred thousand plus.

The idea of the non-transferability of these licenses is intended to to honor that that you know that that it is not an asset to be sold at a price exceeding that application fee um in order to uh you know it's it's it's a it's it's not the same license as one of these existing licenses that an operator has bought on the secondary market that has more privileges that that can be transferred anywhere at any time.

Sure, but that seems like a nice upside benefit.

That's not the reason that people purchase these licenses usually.

They purchase the licenses to do business, right?

Um I do think that's I think that's true.

I also think that, you know, when people are going out of business, that the ability to sell that license is you know that that's often the only only asset of value.

Yeah, yeah, it's you still these these new licenses seem like a pretty good deal, like really good deal.

Um I have some technical questions on this.

Um I'm told that this ordinance needs to be approved by July 1st, according to state law.

Um this might be better for this city attorney, but does that mean it needs to be adopted by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor?

Or does it need to be signed by the mayor under the like what like can you explain to me exactly what needs to happen by July 1st for this?

Deputy City Attorney Broad Rusty, I haven't had a chance to look at the state legislation to tell you that.

I don't know if the department knows one way or the other, but we can look at it now.

Yeah, so SB 395, I'd be happy to pull up the the exact language, but the the language does state um that an ordinance that the that the local governing body that the board of supervisors has to adopt an ordinance and that that ordinance and that for state purposes that ordinance takes effect the following July 1.

I think there is some ambiguity in there as to whether um as to what steps the board needs to take or the local governing body needs to take in order to take effect um in order for for to hit that July 1 milestone.

So there's ambiguity as to whether or not we need to act today to get there in time.

I I think so we have um, you know, we've been in discussion with ABC about this about this timing issue this morning.

Um we've not received anything in writing.

I think uh we are optimistic that we could continue working on this and still move forward, but in terms of cleanly hitting all the milestones to bring surety to it today, uh we would I think you know to the extent that we want to continue discussion in the future and continue discussion over the next uh week.

I think I feel like we would be confident having more discussion with stakeholders.

Um we would request that the uh if the committee is amenable to it, duplicating the file, continuing to move this forward, and then also in parallel, working in very real time to get continued clarity from the city attorney and continue to work on the substance of this item with the impacted stakeholders.

I think that's probably my preferred route.

I don't want to screw anything up here, but I'm I just feel like I need more information to feel clear on it.

I do understand the need.

Look, we got to get downtown back up and running, right?

Like, and the idea of having a fully functional downtown is good.

I like the idea that you guys are working on these things.

Um I don't want to make a mistake just to be intransigent.

I don't think that's the right idea, but that seems like an okay plan.

Um I'm gonna stop talking now, but Chair Walton, thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Vice Chair Shu.

President Maneman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

I don't love being in this position.

It feels a little bit like we're being jammed.

We haven't had a ton really an opportunity to um wrap our brains around the legislation in the first place.

Um, and it appears that we that, at least from the staff's perspective, we're against a deadline.

If we don't act today, um, you know, potentially we lose this opportunity for a year.

So that to me is uh frustrating.

Um I also think it's reasonable not to jam the city attorney and it's unreasonable for him to be expected to give us a definitive answer right now on this.

Um I guess I'm inclined to agree with what I take, Supervisor Sherrill to be suggesting, which is that we duplicate this file, forward it to the full board tomorrow.

By then we should for action tomorrow, we should know by then whether we have to act tomorrow or not.

And if we do not, then we continue it there and don't act on it at the full board tomorrow, and then we have a file at the full board and a file here, and if we need to make further changes, we can do that.

Um I don't know.

I'm open hearing from the chair, open hearing from public comment, but that seems like an adequate path forward given the not great situation.

Thank you, President Manaman.

Um, just out of curiosity, why do we wait till why do we wait so late to bring this forward?

Um it's a it's it's it's regrettable, absolutely.

Um, you know, we have been discussing with um our stakeholders with the existing downtown operator.

I feel like um, you know, we had some initial emails back and back and forth in December, and we've been uh, you know, trying over the last several months in a good faith effort to really get a full sense of um their concerns.

Um and I also appreciate that they're like busy, active, important, you know, they're they're the business that they're doing is very important to the city and to the to the sector.

So I have a lot of appreciation for that.

Um ultimately I think we had hope to have the to have a full sense of stakeholder feedback before we even introduce this item, which is what I think contributed to the delay to introducing it in March, and then tried to move it forward as quickly as possible to allow time.

We were we've been in conversation the last several weeks.

Um, so I think it's you know, I think that there's been discussion between myself, existing operators, um the supervisor Sauter's office, Supervisor Dorsey's office about the the on-the-ground impacts.

Um, but um, but you know, unfortunately the timing uh just ended up it ended up in this place, which is you know on uh less than ideal, and I apologize for that.

I definitely know and understand that stakeholder feedback and stakeholder agreement are definitely two different things.

I also it seems like that maybe talking to some of my colleagues and including them in the conversations with stakeholders during this process with the mayor's office might have might have led to some more productive um outcomes in terms of what we're being presented with today.

Um I definitely would not feel comfortable supporting this today without the city attorney even having enough information to give us the right information that we need to make a decision.

Um I agree with continuing this item.

I don't know why we need to duplicate the file because I'm I don't think the timeline is that restrictive on this to where we couldn't continue this next week to next week.

Um I don't want to vote on this or send this forward to the full board in any form until we hear from the city attorney, but I know we have enough time to come back and weigh in on this moving forward.

Uh Vice Chair Sherrill.

Um, I I basically agree with your sentiment.

I was a little confused about the timing elements, which is why I was suggesting duplicating the file so we don't totally screw ourselves over for lack of a more nuanced term.

Um I do think downtown's a real both source spot and opportunity spot for the city, so I don't want to lose the chance to just wait a year.

Um that said I share your concerns on it.

I have no interest in moving forward at the full board if we receive information back that we have time to act.

Um I think despite my uh let's call it strong annoyance, um, at the situation we find ourselves in, um, I would probably rather have something rather than nothing if it turns out we are in this bind, um, which is my which is why I would push to duplicate the file.

Um but I think I I basically fundamentally agree with your sentiments.

I'd really don't want to have to be voting on this at the full board.

I'd rather be voting on something else.

I'd rather understand the implications fully.

Um but at the end of the day, I think waiting a year, if for some reason we have been put in this weird bind and backed up against the wall, which frankly I'm kind of I'm not supposed to say pissed on the record, right?

Um so yeah.

Ms.

uh deputy city attorney Russie, um if we continue this item to next week without duplicating the file, do we have enough time to to be able to move this forward?

Uh deputy city attorney Brad Rossi, I think because the board is on recess the 26th, due to Memorial Day, that if it's required that the ordinance become effective by July 1st, then there really isn't time because the second meeting will be the second of June, and then the mayor has to sign and it's not effective until 30 days.

I was reading the legislation.

It is kind of unclear what it means in terms of when it needs to be effective.

So I would like time to discuss that with the attorney who drafted this to determine whether what exactly the bill meant by that.

But this is not a position that we ever want to be in.

Um I don't have any more questions or statements right now.

So can we go to public comment?

Thank you.

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

Shline up to speak at this time.

Each speaker will be allowed two minutes.

Good morning, supervisors.

Hope you're doing well.

Thank you for your time and thank you for reflection on this really important matter.

And I, yeah, I just appreciate that.

Um, Mercy Rodriguez, CEO of the Union Square Alliance.

We to answer some of your questions, we've been working um on this solution for quite some time.

Actually, this predates this current administration.

It's something that was born of the pandemic in a time when we were really looking and reflecting on our community and how it had been negatively impacted.

Um there are a number of existing businesses with liquor license to your point, Supervisor Cheryl, um, with regard to how it might impact community in the Union Square community specifically, and that is where who I am speaking to, although this does support the hospitality zone in its entirety, which I think is great.

Um, we understood that we probably could absorb 50 businesses.

Um we are looking at it to say, let's let's roll this out, let's be um thoughtful and intentional, and as we do that, understanding that a world-class city deserves a world-class city center, and in order to put our best foot forward and to continue to show the world that we are healing, we create an environment that where people are essentially in many ways forced to visit us.

We're 12,000 hotel rooms in a hop skip and a jump to the convention center, another 6,000.

So really the full fleet is there, and we can sometimes get your attention for about two days, and you go back home and say, I want to one come back.

I wanted to have my convention here, I want a three, um, you know, demonstrate that this city is returned.

So the more um offerings we have, the thoughtful way we can do this.

Everyone in our community can apply to this.

Um, they can keep their existing asset that they have with an existing business, but I will tell you the good majority of those businesses that are still open today predate the pandemic.

Um, and we really need the fewest um boundaries to opening as possible.

So thank you.

Thank you for giving me that time to express the importance of this legislation.

Good morning, Chair Walton, uh, President Madeline, Supervisor Cheryl.

Uh, thanks for taking into account um the concerns of us operators, the stakeholders that have most to lose with this proposal.

Of course, we all do not want any more vacancies in downtown, um, but we continue to struggle as operators.

Um there's not demand for these licenses right now.

There are 40 licenses parked at the San Francisco ABC, turned in by operators who failed with their own businesses.

So with 40 full liquor licenses sitting at the ABC, most recently one of those sold at 90,000, not 150,000.

Two weeks ago, the ABC sent notices to those 40 license holders, instructing them that they needed to sell those licenses, deploy them themselves, or they would be revoked.

That shows that there is not demand for these licenses.

These license licenses that are parked are probably going to see their value drop below $50,000.

And even at a price of twenty thousand dollars.

If somebody is lucky enough to win one of these licenses, this is not a good environment to be opening a bar and a restaurant right now.

We're struggling with insurance costs, labor costs, and while this city is on the right track, and great initiatives have come out of the OEWD, and particularly from this mayor's office in collaboration with your board, that's all very encouraging.

But this is existential for a lot of us that are barely hanging on.

Um our convention business is coming back, but we're this year, 2026, we're still going to be 300,000 room nights away from what we did in 2019.

So there's an oversupply of licenses right now, and we need to be careful on where we place these licenses.

So I really would request a continuance for at least a week so that we can help specify where these potential licenses could go.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

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

There are no other public commenters on this matter.

Thank you.

See no other speakers' public comment is now closed.

President Mandelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

Um if we voted uh this out with that recommendation to the full board uh tomorrow and then we uh considered an amendment to reduce the number further reduce the number of licenses.

Would that be a substantive amendment at the full board?

That would not be a substantive amendment.

Okay.

Well then I think there's only one path for us, which is to uh, well, we can do whatever we want, but I but I I think you know, waiting another year for anything is to do anything with this legislation is probably a bad idea, and risking that is also a bad idea.

I think you know um the board, the full board might want I mean, I think we should vote it out without recommendation because I think we we're gonna have to have a full conversation about what's going on.

And there are some supervisors whose districts are implicated by this who are not here right now for this conversation.

So um, but it also strikes me that uh, you know, if there's dozens of licenses out there and the prices are dropping, uh putting more licenses in, you know.

I can certainly see the interests of people in, you know, not seeing that happen right this instant.

Um, and you know, maybe maybe the board will want to further reduce the number if we're acting tomorrow.

Um maybe it makes sense to do more conversation and consultation over the next week or two if there's space, you know, to do that.

So I guess that's I would I think we ought to vote this to the full board without recommendation and potentially think about some non-cepts of amendments tomorrow if that's where we are otherwise.

And I do think we should duplicate it in case we can deal with it in case we don't have to take action tomorrow, and we can keep working on it in this committee.

Thank you, President Madam.

Vice Chair Sherro.

Um I basically agree with everything you just said there.

Um I'm happy to make a motion unless Chair Walden, you'd prefer to say anything first.

Well, you can make a motion, uh, definitely I'm gonna say, all right.

Um so great.

I think I will then move to um accept the amendments um that were requested by OEWD um through Mr.

Van Hutton's presentation.

Um and then after that motion, I think I'll move to send this to the full board of supervisors without recommendation.

Um, and as President Mandelman said, I think, you know, if it makes sense tomorrow, I'm definitely supportive of a full continuance if that's that's where we end up being.

Um, um, President Mandelman, do you think duplicating the file is something you want to see no reason not to?

Um I mean I would I think anybody can request that, right?

Yeah.

So I'd like just to request that there's duplicated file that sits here and uh and rules.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Victoria Cheryl.

So on the motion to accept the amendment, Mr.

Clerk.

Yes, on the motion to accept the amendment.

Vice Chair Cheryl.

Sheryl.

Aye.

Member Manelman.

Aye.

Manelman aye.

Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Motion carries amendment accepted before we take a vote on the amended item.

I do just want to say that uh this is a horrible position to put this board in to put the community in.

Obviously, everyone here wants to see downtown thrive.

Um, I do want to obviously have a lot of foot traffic, have people coming into our city and join our city.

I do not have any desire to do anything that will put other businesses out of business here in San Francisco, particularly businesses who have stuck with us pre-pandemic and been with us post-pandemic.

Um, definitely concerned about the harm this does with licenses that are already sitting out there and undercutting basically businesses that are operating by only charging 20K when they are open licenses.

That is very concerning for me and what that does to uh our businesses.

But with that said, um, I think we have a path to where we can make a decision that will be beneficial for our businesses.

I don't like that it has to happen between now and tomorrow.

Um I don't I don't even know how you get real negotiations overnight, particularly if we haven't gotten to common ground with the months that have been allowed prior to today, but we are in a in a tough position.

So on the motion on the amendment I'm to move the amendment item.

Uh, would you like to duplicate the amended first?

Done.

Yeah, duplicate for sure.

Okay, uh duplicate it.

And then um on the motion to refer the matter to the Board of Supervisors as a committee report without recommendation.

On that motion, Vice Chair Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl Aye.

Member Manelman, aye.

Madaman aye.

Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton aye.

And then on the motion, I assume to continue the duplicated version to the call of the chair.

Correct.

On that motion, Vice Chair Cheryl.

Aye.

Cheryl Aye.

Member Mannelman, Madam and Aye.

Chair Walton.

Aye.

Walton aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk, for that uh correction.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the San Francisco Hate Crime Reward Fund.

Thank you so much.

And I believe we have legislative aide, Brian Dahl from Supervisor Dorsey's office here to report.

And also Carl Nasita from SFPD government affairs.

Brian.

Good morning, Chair Walton, President Mandelman, Member Cheryl.

My name is Brian Dahl, legislative aide for District 6 Supervisor Matt Dorsey.

Supervisor Dorsey apologizes that he can't be here this morning, but he appreciates the committee hearing this item.

Over the last several years, San Francisco has seen a number of how of high profile hate-driven incidents.

Hate crimes are uniquely harmful because they are intended not only to harm an individual victim, but to instill fear in entire community.

These crimes can range from vandalism and threats to serious acts of violence and even homicides.

Every San Franciscan deserves to feel safe and respected regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or background.

San Francisco prides itself on being an inclusive city that celebrates diversity, and we should continue leading by example when it comes to confronting hate and supporting impacted communities.

This legislation would create a hate crime reward fund to provide rewards when information leads to the filing of criminal charges and hate crimes.

The proposal is modeled after the homicide reward fund legislation that Supervisor Dorsey sponsored and that the board unanimously passed last year.

It's important that we treat these incidents with the seriousness they deserve and send a clear message that San Francisco will not tolerate hate-driven violence or intimidation.

Hate has no place in our city.

This legislation is about supporting victims, strengthening accountability, and encouraging members of the public to come forward with information that can help solve these crimes.

We are joined today by Carl Nasita from the San Francisco Police Department.

Should the committee have any questions?

And Supervisor Dorsey hopes to earn your support.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Brian.

And just a quick question, just for public and for my clear understanding.

Where were the resources come from for the fund?

And Mr.

Nasida, would you maybe want to provide a bit more clarity?

Or Carl.

Good morning, Chair Walton.

So the ordinance would establish a category six fund for donations or appropriations from the board.

The ordinance does not appropriate any money to that fund.

So the department would rely on funds from that category six fund, should there be any available?

Okay.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions.

Don't see any more from colleagues.

Mr.

Clerk, please go to public comment.

Yes, members of the public who should 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.

Thank you.

Seeing no public comment.

Public comment is now closed.

President Mendelman.

Thank you, Chair Walton.

I'll move forward to the full board with positive recommendation.

On the motion on the motion to recommend.

Aye.

Walton, aye.

That motion passes without objection.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Mr.

Clerk, please.

Do we have any more business this morning?

There are no other items on today's agenda.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.