San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the 11/18/2025 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, mister president. Supervisor Chan? Present. Chan present. Supervisor Chen? Chen present. Supervisor Dorsey? Present. Dorsey present. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder present. Supervisor Mahmoud? Yeah. Mahmood present. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Present.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann present. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar present. Supervisor Sauter? Present. Sauter present. Supervisor Sheryl? Present. Sheryl present. And supervisor Walton? Present. Walton present. Mister president, 10 members are present.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. The San Francisco board of supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all. On behalf of the board, I wanna acknowledge the staff at SFgovTV. And today, that's especially Eugene Labadia who record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Mad madam clerk, let's go to our 2PM, special order.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. The special order at 2PM is the appearance at today's meeting by the honorable mayor, Daniel Lurie, present to engage in a formal policy discussion with eligible board members, being one through four. Prior to the discussion, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Welcome, mister mayor. There were no topics submitted for today, so, we have the opportunity to hear from you for up to five minutes.

[Mayor Daniel Lurie]: Thank you, board president. Good afternoon, everyone. I wanna start by thanking the board of supervisors and the land use committee as we continue to advance the family zoning plan. We wanna make sure this is a city where police officers, nurses, and teachers can afford to raise their children and grandchildren. My office has been working closely with all of you to ensure that San Franciscans decide what gets built in San Francisco. As we work to build a city that supports families, we received encouraging news on another front. In October, we recorded the lowest number of overdose deaths since the city started tracking in 2020. It's the second month in a row with fewer than forty overdose deaths. Now that is progress, but one death is one too many. We have all seen people struggling on our streets and in our neighborhoods. That's why we are bringing a new level of coordination to our public safety and public health strategies, disrupting open air drug markets and connecting people to treatment faster. I am proud of the work that we have done together over the past eleven months to confront this crisis with a shared sense of urgency and purpose. And as we look to next year, we are working to stand up a new center with the support of supervisor Dorsey that will help us continue to move that work forward. Now I'm gonna close with this. I am continuing to learn and grow as a mayor. And as I've said and as I said last week to San Franciscans after supervisor Alcaraz stepped down, I wish I had done more to help her succeed. It was not the first time that I have gotten something wrong, and it won't be the last. But I will continue to get better at this job every single day. I'm determined to appoint a district four supervisor who truly represents the sunset and will be the colleague and partner that you all deserve. I wanna thank those of you on the board who have reached out to offer feedback and support throughout this process. Your jobs are not easy, and I am committed to getting this right. So thank you, and I'll let you get back to your meeting.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, mister mayor.

[Mayor Daniel Lurie]: Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. And with that, this matter has been discussed and is now filed. Madam clerk, let's go to our consent agenda, items one through 20.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Communications, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You are correct. Thank you. Let's go back to communications.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you. I'll just a follow-up from the mayor. On November 13, last Thursday, we received a memo from Bea Alcaraz resigning her District 4 seat here at the board of supervisors, leaving a vacancy in the District 4 office, and will remain vacant until the mayor makes his appointment. And so the vote threshold will be either six of 11, despite the vacancy, or unless the charter or other administrative code requires a higher vote threshold. And then I have two routine come communications to make. The first is that the board of supervisors welcomes your attendance here in the board's Legislative Chamber, Room 2 52nd Floor In City Hall. When you cannot be here, we are streaming live on SFGOV TV's channel 26, or, at www.sfgovtv.org. If you have public comment you'd like to submit in either writing, you can send it to bos@sfgov.org or the US Postal Service, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the Number 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act or if you need to request language assistance, You should call the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling (415) 554-5184. Thank you, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. We have approval of the 10/07/2025 board meeting minutes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And can I have, a motion to approve the minutes as presented? Moved by Cheryl, seconded by Walton. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the minutes as presented, supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Supervisor Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor, Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. Madam clerk, let's now go to our consent agenda, items one through 20.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items one through 20 are on consent. These items are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I don't see anyone on the roster. So madam clerk, could you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On items one through 20, supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmoud. Aye. Supervisor, Melgar. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and finally passed. Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Please call item 21.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 21, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to require the arts commission to develop and administer a certification process to identify artists in San Francisco who may be eligible for affordable housing for artists.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think we can take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is is finally passed. Madam clerk, please call item 22.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 22, this is an ordinance to exempt the health service system's life and long term disability insurance services contract from the requirements of article one eleven, the minimum compensation, and article one twenty one, the Health Care Accountability Act of the Labor and Employment Code.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Again, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. Madam clerk, please call item 23.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 23. This is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to create the small business rezoning construction relief program to provide financial support, including grants and loans to businesses impacted by construction relating to the city's residential rezoning program adopted in 2025 through '26 to establish the small business rezoning construction relief fund to receive monies for the program, to designate the Office of Small Business and Office of Economic and Workforce Development, to administer the fund and the program, and to promulgate rules and regulations and furtherance of the program, and to amend the business and tax regulations code, to allow taxpayers to designate a portion of their gross receipts taxes for deposit into the fund.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call without objection. The ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 24.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 24. This is an ordinance to appropriate 3,500,000.0 from the General Reserve to the mayor's office of housing and community development to expand access to existing coordinated services for immigration legal defense and community response services to the immigrant community in fiscal year twenty five through 2026.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 25.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 25. This is a resolution to approve the fourth amendment between the city and LISTC International Limited for class a biosolids management services for an increased amount of 20,700,000.0 and a total amount of approximately 36,670,000.00 to extend the term by two years from 06/30/2027 for a total term of 07/01/2022 through 06/30/2029.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 26.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 26, resolution to authorize the sheriff's office to enter into a contract with Aramark Correctional Services Inc for jail food services for a total contract amount of 22,000,000 and a term of five years with two one year options to renew.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 27.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 27. This is a resolution to approve the third amendment to the airport advertising lease number 12Dash0231 between Clear Channel Outdoor LLC doing business as Clear Channel Airports for the addition of premises solely for the promotion of large sporting events and to establish a new rent structure, for those locations.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call without objection. The resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 28.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 28. This is a resolution to retroactively authorize the police department to accept and expend an approximate $654,000 grant from the Board of State and Community Corrections for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant equipment and training program to procure equipment and services for the criminology laboratory with the project period beginning on 10/01/2025 through 09/30/2026.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 29.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 29. This is a resolution to authorize the mayor's office of housing and community development to execute a standard agreement with California Department of Housing and Community Development under the infill infrastructure grant program, catalytic qualifying infill area, for a total award of 45,000,000.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 30.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 30, resolution to approve for purposes of the internal revenue code of 1986 as amended, section one four seven sub f, of the issuance and sale of revenue obligations by the California Enterprise Development Authority in an aggregate principal amount of 5,000,000 to refinance the cost of acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement, installation, and equipping of a portion of administrative facilities owned and operated by Mission Economic Development Agency.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call without objection. The resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 31.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 31. This item was referred without recommendation from the Budget and Finance Committee. It's a resolution to approve a commercial lease agreement between the city and San Francisco C and C doing business as Mel's Drive In for the retail space located at 801 Mission Street in the 5th And Mission Garage for an initial five year term that will result in an estimated approximate 1,900,000.0 in revenue and one five year option to extend the lease.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, president Mandelbaum. Colleagues, as you know, your budget committee colleagues under the capable leadership of our chair, Connie Chan, occasionally refer items out of that committee without our recommendation. That's not necessarily to embarrass city departments, but typically to flag issues that merit the full board's awareness before the vote. And that is the case today with item 31. I won't speak for my budget committee colleagues, but I will say I don't have any issues with the proposed lease for this business in my district per se. However, in the process of bringing this lease to the board, the BLA identified internal control weaknesses in MTA's lease management practices. These include issues with lease documentation, solicitation practice processes, and the sufficiency of written policies. These issues are largely attributable to executive directors' directives from the COVID lockdown when then mayor, Breed ordered rent abatements where possible to city tenants whose businesses were adversely impacted by that emergency. For SFMTA, there were about 25 retail leases that were verbally amend amended from fixed, rent terms to rents based on 8% of gross sales. Unfortunately, none of those amendments was documented. SFMTA has a plan to address all of these deficiencies in accordance with the BLA the BLA's recommendation. It's my understanding that, there are about 25 leases that MTA verbally amended. Only two of these require board approval, and that is today's lee, lease with Mel's in my district and another lease with TADS Incorporated in supervisor Sauter's district that we'll you can expect to see in January. MTA has agreed to, work with the city attorney on the remaining leases not subject to board approval, and these will be finalized by the end of the first quarter of twenty twenty six. According to the BLA, the rental adjustment of, to 8% of gross sales appears to have been reasonable as compared to similar restaurant leases at the airport and port. So the deficiencies in this item are not, financial, but rather procedural. Kaziah Tang, MTA's real estate division manager, who started this past summer, assured us that she is fully committed to modernizing the division's policies, procedures, and practices, so we don't have issues with division's policies, procedures, and practices so we don't have issues like this before us in the future.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: That's it. Alright. Thank you, supervisor Dorsey. I don't think anyone needs a roll call for this. I'm not seeing okay. Then we will take item 31, same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call items thirty two and thirty three together.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items thirty two and thirty three are two ordinances that pertain to the SF Gateway Project. Item 32, this ordinance amends the planning code and the zoning map to establish the San Francisco Gateway Special Use District, generally bounded by Kirkwood Avenue to the Northeast, Rankin Street to the Northeast to the Southeast, McKinnon Avenue to the Southwest, and Tollan Street to the Northwest, and to make the appropriate findings. Item 33, this ordinance approves the development agreement between the city and county and Prologis for the development of an approximate 17.1 acre site located at Tolland Street at Kirkwood Avenue with two multistory production distribution and repair buildings in a core industrial area, for retail uses, rooftop solar array, ground floor, maker space, and streets built to city standard and to make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And let's take these items. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinances are passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 34.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 34. This ordinance amends the planning code to define legacy businesses and to require conditional use authorization prior to replacing a legacy business with a new nonresidential use in certain neighborhood commercial named neighborhood commercial and neighborhood commercial transit districts and in the Chinatown mixed use districts to amend the administrative code to allow a business that has been operating for fifteen years to qualify as a legacy business to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings pursuant to charter section 4.105. This matter requires a vote of two thirds or eight votes of the entire membership of the board to reverse the disapproval of a planning commission and approve this ordinance for passage.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chien.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandel and colleagues. The ordinance, before you today recognizes that legacy, and long time businesses are not just business entities. They are cultural assets and are recognized as contributors to the neighborhoods that pave the way for other small businesses to thrive. Small businesses can no longer rely on goodwill negotiation traditionally afforded by individual or family property owners. They are facing increasing pressure from corporate landlords and developers who only seek to capitalize on speculative markets. This ordinance perfectly encapsulates, the goals of a number of policy under the city's commerce and industry elements objective. It enhances the city's social, cultural, and economic vitality and boosts employment opportunities. The commerce industry, elements objective 3.1 even explicitly states that one employment sector that often serves to be a source of employment opportunity to minorities and low skilled workers is the small business sector. However, small, newly formed businesses suffer from a high percentage of business failures. Therefore, protection of existing small businesses, particularly those that have been operating for more than a decade, deserves protection, not only for the business but also for the preservation of jobs for minorities and economically disadvantaged communities. That is why this legislation includes exemption for micro and small businesses from the conditional use authorization process and exempt storefronts that are and have been vacant for three years or more. This is to ensure we're adding protection without adding more barriers to new small business owners. If we cannot protect the existing, small business, how can we give confidence to new entrepreneurs that they too can thrive in San Francisco? Before the vote, I would like to also make the motion to introduce amendments and make amendments to this legislation that are non substantive to exempt legacy business from the conditional use authorization process, along with small business, and that is on page nine, colleagues, and lines 17 to 18, inserting the definition into planning code. And again, on page 10, line 11, inserting the term legacy business, or qualifies as a small business. And on page 11, line seven, again, in inserting legacy business. Colleagues, we it's a long journey to be here. We have gotten feedback from our small business commission, and it's a reason why that this legislation is different than the one that was passed unanimously last year, as a conditional use, authorization for interim zoning control for eighteen months, authored by, board president former board president Aaron Peskin, and that now we are turning this into permanent for a conditional use authorization in the event a legacy business is displaced. The difference between that legislation and this is that we're providing exemption. Small business and legacy business will not need to go through the CU should they move into that space, both current, meaning the existing space, or a new developed space. All which is to say is really with a simple goal, how can we protect our small business when they face, displacement and, and still not compromising and making sure that any empty storefronts, both existing and the new one, can still be a welcoming space for small business, including legacy business. I hope to have your support, colleagues, and thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you, president. I voted against this ordinance at the land use committee a few weeks ago. And while I appreciate the new amendments and I'll be voting in support of the amendments, I'll still be voting no on the original on the overall ordinance here at the full board, due to, from my perspective, not addressing the concerns fully that were raised by the planning department and the small business commission. But firstly, I am a supporter of the legacy business program. I cherish the small businesses that have long been in the fabric of our neighborhoods, like Soko Hardware in Japantown or GameScape on Divisadero. It's a win win, that provides marketing, grant opportunities, and assistance to long running businesses to help keep them going, and to keep our neighborhoods and storefronts vibrant. But it is for that reason that I am opposed to this legislation. This entire year as a board, and in the mayor's office as well, we've been focused on cutting red tape, permit SF, good governance, removing obstacles for businesses to fill vacant storefronts. Oftentimes, those vacant storefronts need to be filled by grocery stores and pharmacies, and that is something that we are trying to do all over the city at this time. But by requiring a conditional use authorization to fill a space that was formerly held by a legacy business, it creates negative incentives to block new legacy business destinations, or even worse, incentivize landlords to kick out a business once they approach their thirty year threshold, or fifteen years if under threat of displacement under this ordinance. This item is meant to protect, and is well intended in protecting legacy businesses, but the legislation in

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: and of itself does not distinguish between

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: a business that is being kicked out due to displacement by the landlord, business that is being kicked out due to displacement by the landlord or through their own volition. And it stands to, in turn, threaten their potential, to maintain or apply for a legacy business in that context. We heard at the committee from the planning department that it has already created issues in the areas where this place where this policy is in place as an interim zoning control, where a business was asked to leave the program so as to not make it more difficult for the landlord. Our constituents want us to know want us to make government work better for them. And it's clear to me that this legislation is not working in that direction. And I'm not alone. It's rare for any item, let alone one that is focused on small business, to be opposed by the Small Business Commission, opposed by the Planning Commission, and opposed by the Council of District Merchants Association. There's a carve out in this legislation for small businesses, that, again, while while intended, would prevent them from needing a conditional use authorization, but the planning department told us as well in committee that this would be something that they would have a hard time implementing. The planning commission also noted that this is not a typical use of conditional use authorization, which is intended to help regulate land use, not property owners. The planning commission would have no grounds to deny a conditional use authorization to a new business, and yet they would still have to jump through hoops to fill a vacant storefront. There are already formula retail restrictions on these areas where this ordinance would apply, so this does nothing to prevent chain stores from opening in the neighborhood. This legislation, again, while well intended, will have the opposite effect of its intent, with respect to legacy businesses and instead put a strain on those incentives. It creates process for new and expanded businesses and keeps storefronts vacant as the net effect in the city's neighborhood commercial districts. It's not good government. And for that reason, I'll be voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Before I call on supervisor Sauter, the clerk has pointed out to me that supervisor Chan made a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Walton, and we will continue. Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I appreciate the intention of this, ordinance, and, you know, I I know that we all share a commitment for legacy businesses and small businesses. I'm concerned that this will work as intended in some cases, but in just as many cases, if not more, it will have unintended consequences. And that is not something that is just my thought or my opinion. It is something that has been flagged and shared, by the Planning Commission's, recommendation to not approve this, by the Small Business Commission's recommendation to not approve this, and by the largest citywide organization of merchants, the San Francisco Council of District Merchants. I see a lot of other options that would be more clear and would be more impactful for us to support legacy businesses and small businesses. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Sherrill.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I won't go into the detail and repeat what, my colleagues, supervisors Mahmoud and Sauter, mentioned. But by and large, I agree with everything that they said. And what troubles me most here is that we are erecting barriers without certainty that this would actually benefit our legacy and our small businesses. We've seen examples where a conditional use requirement is already in place for spaces formerly filled with legacy businesses. And displacement still occurred. We've heard directly from the Small Business Commission and the Planning Commission, who both voted to reject this ordinance, that the Planning Department will have trouble adjudicating, who is a small business to fill these vacancies. And, you know, we've seen examples of legacy businesses who have delisted themselves from the registry because this requirement would worsen the business's relationship with their landlord. I think we should be promoting small businesses. I think we should be encouraging small businesses to become legacy businesses. And anything that creates potential disincentives around that, whether intended or unintended, or something, we must, prevent. And so, I think I will be voting against this this measure, and I will be standing up for our small businesses and supporting our thriving neighborhood merchant corridors as such. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you. I wanna clarify a couple of things. I think that, it would be misleading to think that, first and foremost, I think Small Business Commission, while did not recommend this legislation, this is before we taking the feedback about how this could be a barrier for small business. And since then, we then, with their feedback, to add the exemption. And that's really the clear difference than the one that previously proposed. And we take in that feedback to exempt small business and micro business, and now even the legacy business, for them to move into the existing or new, vacant storefront. I don't think that is it's also misleading to think that somehow the planning commission, while voted against it, that it was unanimous. It was a four two with Commissioner, Gilbert Williams, absent, against this, legislation. I think that, let me also put this in a context about how this is, in a context of the upzoning, legislation that's gonna come before us in December, to really think about what are the mechanism that we can provide to protect the existing legacy business and small business. What I do think that, it is our responsibility to utilize every, legislative tools in our toolbox to protect our small business. To date, other than supervisor Malgaard's legislation to provide a relief fund, and we still need to work on a mechanism for the funding source, We have not done much to protect our small business. I we I believe we need to do a lot more than what is before us today. And should this not be approved, I think it's a missed opportunity, given what we have to face very soon in December. There are small businesses that are already facing, difficulty and, being really pushed out by formula retail. And for me, as a district supervisor for the Richmond, I've already seen some of our small business, including legacy business, facing those challenges. So, I'm not gonna belate my point, but I'm gonna make the motion to amend, which thank you so much to the second, vice supervisor Walton, and I do wish at least we have that vote, to be able to amend, this legislation, and then before we cast our final vote. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I'll just keep it short. It has worked in my district, and I will be supporting this.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Sherrill.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I just want to note that I do think this board has done a lot to support small businesses. And I think there's a difference between protecting and supporting. And when we talk to the small businesses in my district, the number one thing they're struggling with is foot traffic and customers. We need more customers. They need more revenue. We need to support them to be creative. We need to support our neighborhood merchant corridors to have no vacancies, to be absolutely thriving. We need to make it easier to do business here in San Francisco. There's no question that formula retail stores in certain corridors can drive up costs. That is true. But this legislation doesn't touch on that. Formula retail already has to go through conditional use applications. There are already protections in place there, and this would be duplicative in many ways. I think we need to stay focused on the fact that the number one problem that our small businesses are facing here in San Francisco is a lack of customers. Sales tax receipts are down in every single neighborhood in San Francisco, other than Mission Bay, from pre COVID. That's sales tax receipts. That means business is down, and costs are up. We have to make sure they're getting more customers. We have to increase vibrancy, and we have to support them in every way to do this. Protections that could cause unintended consequences. And and I and I do think it's unintended. I don't think anybody's trying to hurt anybody here. So I wouldn't say that. But we have to create more vibrancy, more customers, more excitement here in San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: My apologies, president Vennaments, and and with all due respect to supervisor Cheryl, I must say that this actually came from, you know, based on, in fact, in your district, like, Mediterian and and other, Japanese restaurants, that's been a legacy business, thirty, forty years, on Fillmore, and was actually, bought up, by billionaire on the block and create a lot of anxiety. And, in fact, because of the interim zoning control of this very same legislation, CU, that one of them get to stay and be able to have the leverage to negotiate. And it's been a great business on the block for a long time. And, you know, in fact, they now have a second shop somewhere, you know, somewhere else in the city. But, so, it has proven that it worked. There's nothing here to stop small business who move into the storefront. And you still also have formula retail can come in. In fact, many formula retail has the resources and the leverage, whether it's one CU or two CU. But, again, I think there's very little tool at at this moment and mechanism to protect small business and legacy business. And there's nothing to stop the food traffic or small business to fill up the storefront. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chen.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, president Mendelmann. I I just wanna center I'm supporting this ordinance. But what I want to center is there's been a lot of gaps in between protections and support. So so our small business is definitely, a value to San Francisco. But when we look at, the bigger context of everything that we are trying to do in our city currently, I think this legislation just provides an additional layer of protection to our legacy business. We're talking about legacy business, a business that has invested in our neighborhood for how many years? How many years do you have to operate as a business to qualify to be a legacy business? So I think this is, the value, the story, what neighborhood like District 11, if we can have a a legacy business that it's continued operating after fifty years, we totally, 100% cherish it. And and anything that we can do, as minimal as the CU, to make sure that we protect those business, I'm all for it. And I think, and this is what makes my neighborhood, this is what makes San Francisco special. So I am going to support this legislation. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Colleagues, we have a motion from, supervisor Chan, seconded by supervisor Walton. Can we take that motion to amend without objection? Without objection, the motion passes. And then madam clerk, can you call the roll on the amended ordinance?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 34 as amended, supervisor Dorsey? No. Dorsey, no. Supervisor Fielder? Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Ma'amud, no. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar?

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter? No. Sautter, no. Supervisor Sheryl? No. Cheryl, no. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor, Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. There are six ayes and four nos with supervisors Dorsey, Mahmoud, Sauter, and Cheryl voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And the ordinance fails. Alright. Let's go to our, 02:30 special order.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. At 02:30, it is time for the recognition of commendations from meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And first up, District 9, supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you so much, president Mandelmann. I'd like to invite to the podium the executive director, one of the cofounders of the American Indian Culture District, Shireya Souza. Please give it up. It is an honor during Native American Heritage Month to recognize a powerful woman leader in the American Indian community. What makes her accomplishment even more extraordinary is that she successfully organized community members, advanced legislation, and laid the foundation for a transformative culture institution at a time when the world was shut down during the COVID-nineteen pandemic, when traditional outreach was nearly impossible. Her determination, creativity, and unwavering commitment ensured that San Francisco's first ever American Indian culture district not only came to life, but did so in one of the most challenging moments in our city's history. As a proud member of the Taos Pueblo, Ute, and Kiowa peoples, Sharaya has dedicated her life to uplifting American Indian communities, and ensuring that native voices are heard, respected, and represented. She's been a champion for fair and equitable resource distribution for native peoples, pushing institutions to recognize the long overlooked needs and contributions of our communities in our city, including ensuring that we are rightfully counted. She worked closely with the city to correct years of undercounting that once reported us as only 0.3% and then 1.1% of the city's population. After the 2020 redistricting data was reviewed in the wake of her advocacy, the truth emerged. Native people make up 2.1 of San Francisco. This includes more than about 18,000 American Indians who identify as native, along with another race, and 6,475 who identify as native alone. Because of her commitment, our community is now seen, acknowledged, and represented with accuracy and respect. She has worked to elevate native voices in the tech sector, support native youth retention, led institutional and nonpartisan research, and guided processes of tribal cultural resource protection, environmental review, and land use mediation. Her work has helped native communities navigate tribal consultation, seek recognition as non federally recognized tribes, and identify most likely descendants in the sacred task of repatriating Native American ancestors. Through her leadership, she has increased native visibility and political representation, advanced public art and place making through initiatives like Indigenize SF, and helped establish formal land acknowledgments, like the one we say at this board, every board meeting. She has expanded community center programs, like the cultural gardening at Black Point, supported historical truth telling through projects like the Indigenize SF Mapping Genocide Project, and advocated for essential community infrastructure, including the village housing vision. By serving on numerous city advisory groups and building strong coalitions of elders, youth, two spirit leaders, and cultural organizations, Sharaya has helped create a recognized and thriving cultural district that preserves heritage, strengthens community, and ensures that indigenous voices are deeply embedded in the future of San Francisco. What makes Reya's leadership so remarkable is not just the breadth of her work, but also the spirit behind it. She leads with clarity, with courage, and with a profound sense of responsibility to her ancestors and future generations. She reminds us that cultural preservation is not only about honoring the past, but about building a just and thriving future. Thank you, Sharaya, for your unwavering dedication, your extraordinary leadership, and your lifelong commitment to uplifting our people and cultures. Before you go ahead, my colleagues want to, sing your praises as well.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you so much. First, thank you, supervisor Fielder, for recognizing, Sharaya's awesomeness. I have had the great pleasure of working with Shireya on a couple things, and have long admired her particular combination of grace, elegance, and fierceness. The passion that she brings to uplifting the community, her leadership in truth and healing for the community, and also her stewativeness in making sure that grant dollars end up with the community. I have so much admiration for you, Sharaya, how you are, shining a light and leading the path for others. It is so important to have, role models and people who shine as bright as you, with such intelligence and grace. So I am so glad, that you're here with us, leading this work in San Francisco, and, will always support your efforts. And I just so admire you, and I'm glad that we are doing this commendation. Thank you so much, supervisor Fielder.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Sheryl.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Shreya, first of all, thank you for being you and for being the leader that you are. You make our city better every day. And supervisor Fielder, thank you so much for recognizing a leader like Shreya. Supervisors Melgar and Fielder spoke a lot about your leadership across the city. But I just want to say leadership acts out in big ways across great communities, but also in little ways. And the community at Fort Mason, where you are based each and every day, loves you. And I just want to thank you for being such a wonderful part of District 2. And when the neighbors speak out about how much joy and community you've brought to even just a few offices around you, I think that deserves just as much celebration as your leadership across our larger community. And I think it speaks volumes about who you are, and the organization

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: that you've built, and the movement that you're leading. So thank you so much. And I just, would like to echo the comments of my colleagues. And as the district eight supervisor who, gets to have, a little bit of the Cultural District in District 8, it's been a great privilege to be able to work with you in the Cultural District these last however many years. So congratulations. Well deserved. And thank you, supervisor

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Fielder.

[Sharaya Souza, Executive Director, American Indian Cultural District]: I don't know how this thing works, but I'll do the Pueblo height thing. Thank you so much, supervisor Fielder. It's an honor to have another Native American woman supervisor sitting up there and giving this commendation. And I'm truly grateful to see you sitting up there and acting, you know, as as an example of what can be for our young people, and for myself, even though I won't be sitting up there. And supervisor Melgar, you know, for authoring the the resolution on truth and healing. Reparations advisory committee was was really strong and really powerful. And I hope we continue to back that and carry that on. And all you've done, to bring forth Native American commendations last year, and honoring Mary, and just including the native community. Truly appreciate working there, and bringing us out of Twin Peaks. You know, to to run projects out there with our stewardship program. And thank you, supervisor Cheryl, for acknowledging my work as well. I just wanted to say, as Jackie kind of centered, it wasn't easy starting off and doing the work that we did. You know, a lot of people asked in five years, and a lot of our community members, and it's such an honor to sit here today with many of the the leaders and the elders that actually guided the work that we do, and the reason why we have this cultural district. We started in the pandemic. I remember sitting up, I had gotten here. I worked for Native American Heritage Commission for almost five years working on tribal cultural resources and human remains. And when I came to the city, I thought, oh my gosh, I'm just gonna work in tech. And I went to Twitter, and started the first indigenous group there, and started the first native hashtag emoji, eagle feather emoji, and brought in April and Morningstar to do the first ever Native American panel, that went off at Twitter. So I think it was kind of calling me back. And I had, met April through the cultural center. I said, no, no, no, I'll just volunteer. And she goes, no, come on, sis, come work with us. And, stood by my side, side by side, along with Debbie, Mary Jean, and a lot of our other community members, in order to build the American Indian Cultural District. But this hasn't been an easy feat. We didn't start out like my sister's Japantown or Cultural District, where we'd been around for twenty seven years. We had to start out a lot of our work, like the supervisor shared, just proving that we weren't point 2% of the population. You know, that we had to use native led data to identify over 18,000 American Indians. We had to identify in the housing on for the very first time in five years, that American Indians were the third This is the third largest relocation city San Francisco is. And if you were to rehouse all American Indians that are unhoused at the time we did the data, you would increase our population by 10%. We have the third largest unsolved missing murdered indigenous cases people in The United States. Right? We are right here on Yelamu, on Ramaytush Ohlone land, and there are still sources that believe that American Indians aren't alive. So a lot of that early work, this getting to this point was sixty hour weeks. It was it was being beat down. It was being humbled. It wasn't easy. And facing over 250 k budget cuts, and working this year with two staff currently on a budget of less than 700,000 to do what we do, has been a kick in the in the gut to the work and the progress that we've made. So this work has not been easy. Right? And where we got has not been easy. And and we spent the first five years I just wanna say, thank goodness to the community members and the leaders here in this room. The first five years we spent doing, the Native American Heritage Month resolution, as was noted with the Board of Supervisors, Working with the Human Rights Commission on the first ever land acknowledgement resolution, and now it's gone throughout the city as well in leadership with the association of Ruma Tushaloni. Worked with supervisor Melgar on the Truth and Healing Reparations Advisory Committee initiative. What is that? The idea is to develop a committee that creates a ten year comprehensive plan to address the inequities that exist within the American Indian community in San Francisco. We also worked on a health disparities resolution with all of the health orgs, the cultural center, Friendship House, Native American Health Center, indigenous justice, many, many others on our leadership council, as well as two cultural district expansions. And more recently, thank you for the supervisors that were able to join us. We, were nominated as semifinalists for state recognition for the California Arts Council program. So in five years, a lot of that work that we have done has been around recognition, and just being, you know, having to say again, we're still here as American Indians, and fight that fight. So the last things I just wanted to share is our indigenized asset program we've been running with the American Indian Cultural Center, our mapping genocide project, which we're excited to kick off our gala with the San Francisco Arts Commission tomorrow, November 19, to bring awareness to the San Fran to the San Francisco Arts Commission on that work, and also our community land stewards program. We have a lot of our stewards here. We've been stewarding Black Point, for nearly five years now, as well as other areas, such as the Presidio throughout the city, and doing the Community Ambassadors Food Program, as well as our American Indian Cultural District Young Leaders Council. And that's just some of the achievements that some of my leadership members here have been able to come together and do in the last five years. And I just wanted to do a quick special thank you, to April McGill, who's in here, who's the executive director of the American Indian Cultural Center, for believing me and being crazy enough to I say crazy to to trust me to be here. Because when I came here in 2019, and I first sat in these chambers, and I came with her meeting after meeting, she sat up here protesting and protesting, and I said, April, where is everybody? And she never missed a meeting, and she never, you know, missed an opportunity to hold people accountable. And she stood as a role model for me and why I'm able to do that today. And I also wanna thank, Julia, who is from the mayor's office of housing community development. In 2019, when we started, it was the pandemic. And everybody said, no, don't. You don't have a chance. We even had a supervisor up here who was native who said, don't do it. It's not likely. I don't think There's many other things that are happening in this city right now, and I don't think you stand a chance. But you should try next year when it comes out and things are in better position. I called Julia. She said, no, sis. You need this. Your people need this. You deserve this. And even though we lined up 36 people on the line, and it was the very first day of the board of supervisors meeting in the pandemic, they said nobody was on the line, because they didn't even know how to use the phone during that time. But somehow, by the grace of creator, it passed. And also the hard work with people. And thank you also, to Mary Travis Allen, my leadership council president, who, even through times when she didn't think I listened to her or agreed, she stood by my side and guided me to do things in the right way. Thank you, Mary, wherever you are. And, also to, Mary Jean Robertson, KPO native voices of fifty years, who came together and put the map together for the American Indian Cultural District. And I know right now, she's saying talk slower so I can hear you. Slow it down. And, but I'm trying to go faster, so I can get y'all in there. And, Debbie as well. Debbie has been coming out and reaching out to our community, and actually put together the information when I came in in 2019 that created the legislation for the American Indian Cultural District. And no matter what, she always makes sure that all these community members show up to all of our event. And last but not least, the last few I'd like to recognize are Greg Castor, our association, and a R O, for allowing us to do this in a good way. It is very odd to have an American Indian cultural district on Native American land, and not do it in a good way in partnership. And last but not least, I just want to recognize all of my AICD leadership council members. I will not read Well, I don't know what my time is, but I I will not read all of their names, but I could not do that without all 15 of them, including folks in the Cultural Conservancy, Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits, American Indian Cultural Center. We have Crystal Wapapa from Wapapa's Kitchen. We have Native American Health Center Association, Ramatuj Ohlone. San Francisco USD Indian Education Program. Friendship House Association of American Indians. We have our Young Leaders Council. We have our elected elder chair. Our our two spirit and an LGBTQ chair. And our elder elected chair. And so, I could not do it without all of those people, and I just thank you very much for coming together. And last but not least, I don't know if all of you know this and what we've achieved. I have two staff. They've been here five months, and they are complete rock stars. And I really hope I can get the support of the board of supervisors to grow it to a third, because we can't continue to do what we do and make this work happen without that support. One of my staff today, like, couldn't even be here because she was just overwhelmed by the amount of stuff that she had. She had to leave and go home. And so it's it's really sad to see that happen, and that we have to come together and beg you all in Native Hawaiian to give that support. But I really hope you consider that when you look at funding for cultural districts. So thank you to each and every one of these elders and leaders here today that have have backed us for the support in order to be here. And we are excited and honored that we have this level of support for Native American Heritage Month. So thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Looks like there's a photo going on on the rotunda, I'm guessing. Alright. So we're gonna let cultural district folks maybe work their way out, and then we'll call our next honoree. Alright. And for folks who may be here for a 3PM special order, we got a lot of commendations to get through, so it's gonna be a little while. District ten supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I would like to call up Phil Andrade.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: There he is.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Colleagues, today, I am honored to recognize a true San Francisco institution. One that has fed generations, brought neighbors together, and helped shape the culture and character of our city for half a century. We are here to celebrate Goat Hill Pizza on its fiftieth anniversary. Gold Hill Pizza opened its doors in 1975 in Potrero Hill long before many of the changes we've seen across the city. But through every shift and challenge, Gold Hill has remained a constant. A place rooted in community, tradition, and the San Francisco we all know and love. For fifty years, Gold Hill Pizza has been more than a restaurant. It has been a gathering place, a family spot, a neighborhood staple that has welcomed long time residents, new families, and visitors with that unmistakable sourdough crust that only San Francisco can claim. But what makes Goat Hill special isn't just the food. It's the commitment to community, from supporting local schools and nonprofits, to showing up for neighborhood events. Gold Hill pizza has always given back to the people who have kept them thriving. Their work reflects the values that make our neighborhoods strong with connection, consistency, and care. Small businesses like Gold Hill Pizza are the heart of San Francisco. They hold our stories, anchor our neighborhoods, and remind us what community truly looks like. Reaching fifty years and still being family friendly, community centered, and proudly local is an incredible achievement. So today, I wanna extend our deepest appreciation and congratulate Goat Hill Pizza on this milestone anniversary. Thank you for your dedication, for your service, and for continuing to represent what makes San Francisco so special. Here's to fifty years of sourdough service and community and many more to come. Thank you.

[Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association]: Mister

[Phil Andrade, Co-owner, Goat Hill Pizza]: president, supervisor Walton, members, well, thank you for this honor and recognition. As you know, we are a legacy business, and we thank you also for the creation of that program, which has been a great help to us in serving the community and being recognized by our community. I want to introduce to you, my partners who are with me, Joel Lipsky, Michael Monley, and, Debbie Heisentreit. We are, in some form or another, the same five people that started the restaurant fifty years ago, and we're just thrilled to have been able to be of service and use to the city and county of San Francisco. We thank, of course, the board, and we thank speaker emeritus, Nancy Pelosi, who came last week to honor us during Potrero Hill History Night, which some of you may have heard about at Pier 70, a new, area for growth in San Francisco. And we were honored there by the Potrero Hill archive project for our fifty years, and speaker America and her husband came to celebrate with us. And for that, we were most grateful and honored. We are grateful also to our partners in the Potrero Hill neighborhood in business, the merchant community, which as a community is supportive of each other through our, Potrero Dogpatch merchant organization, which enables us to work together to support business in the Dogpatch Petro Hill community. Furthermore, I'd like to thank the staff of Goat Hill Pizza for all of the incredible work they've done over the fifty years of our existence. And probably and most importantly, I wanna thank the community of Potrero Hill, Dogpatch, and the rest of San Francisco who has supported us throughout our fifty years. And in 2012, we moved into West Portal for a second branch of our operation, and we thank the West Portal community for the support it's given us since that time. Thank you, supervisor Milga. So with that, thank

[Richard S.D. Peterson (Public commenter, licensed fortune teller)]: you. That's all I

[Phil Andrade, Co-owner, Goat Hill Pizza]: can say. We're happy to be here and grateful to you for your support of small business and legacy business. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Next up, District 11, supervisor Chen.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. May I have, mister Zazie comes to the podium, please? Thank you. Ken Zazie is a naval dinee from New Mexico. He is a District 11 resident and city employees at San Francisco, SFO, San Francisco Airport Museum. He grew up in Farmington, a border town of the reservation. While his parents were born and raised traditional on the Navajo on the Navajo Reservation, they decided to raise their children nontraditional because of their boarding school experience. Before moving to San Francisco, Ken worked at the, Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, and the National Museum of American Indian in New York City. Since 1998, he has worked at SFO Museum, manage managing objects for exhibitions throughout the airport terminals. In 2005, he became the registrar for the aviation collections, utilizing his vast knowledge of aviation history and airline corporate identity to catalog and preserve SFO Museum's collection for over 280,000 objects, spanning the development of commercial aviation across The Pacific Rim and beyond. In community, Ken has supported the American Indian Cultural Center, Friendship House, and the Native American Health Center. He participated in the removal of the Pioneer Monument and attended the sunrise ceremonies on Alcatraz in remembrance of the occupations of occupations of Alcatraz and in solidarity with the murder and missing indigenous women. At SFO, he spearheaded efforts to recognize and celebrate the contributions of native and indigenous community doing employee resources group events with SFO's land recognition ceremony of the rheumatischel Ohlone. It is my great honor today to recognize Ken Yazzie's long standing commitment and dedication and dedication towards honoring the legacy of Native Americans in the San Francisco Bay Air Bay Area throughout preserving culture, volunteering, and your generous support in cultural in cultural events. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And before you speak, supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I just quickly quickly wanted to to thank you for all of your service, and thank you for making our American Indian community proud through your many contributions. Thank you so much. Congratulations.

[Ken Yazzie (Honoree; SFO Museum Registrar)]: Thank you. My name is Ken. Yes. And, you know, I've when I moved here in San Francisco back in '98, I had no idea what was all entailed for me to be part of, especially working at SFO. And first of all, I was very, very, honored and privileged that, I was set second set setting foot on a a really vast building, at that time. And so I wanna say thank you, supervisor Chen. I really appreciate you nominating me, and also the community that, that you hear clapping. And because we we natives are still here in San Francisco and in California. And, we stand for who we are. And it doesn't matter if we were brought up traditionally or nontraditional, we're still here. And, you know, I it was hard for me to to growing up, it was really hard for me to see how the native was brought the native person was seen, especially as a little kid, because the TV was my, babysitter. And, and so I saw the the native as the savage, the alcoholic, the sidekick, you know, always a second place kind of a stance, you know. You know, all these characters. And so now being being this, individual here standing in front of you, I am Navajo. And San Francisco, of all places, is the only place that I had to stand that the question was, are you 100%? I'm from New Mexico. I graduated from University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. I transferred over to an internship in Washington, DC. Then I went up to New York City. Of all the different places I I came from, lived at that time in my young life, when I said I was Navajo, they they under they said, oh, okay. Great. You know, that's great. You know, thank you for you know, it's great to be with you kind of thing. But here in San Francisco, not all the time though, I was mistaken as Asian. And it was really hard. I mean, because everyone thought I was Filipino. And I spoke that I was too friendly. I opened doors for the ladies. I said, please. I said, thank you. And it's like, you know, when I heard that, are you a 100%? It really bothered me. And every once in a while, I get that question again. Are you a 100%? And now my answer is, I used to be a 100%. Because now I have two knee replacements, and I have some crowns. So I'm like, 88.9%. So, 88 rate. I really but I'm still Navajo. I just wanna say thank you for the museum, SFO Museum, because I've learned so much from being involved in the collection of the museum. I don't know. I I wish the mayor was still here. I wanted to invite him to see the back rooms. Everyone's seen the front the forefront, the the, you know, in international terminal. But if you go into the back room to see where we do our work, where the, you know, how we put these exhibits up in all the different areas of of the airport. And where I work in the permanent collection of airlines, who would who would think a native working in the airline area of history and and being and just like, I'm like a little kid in a candy store. I mean, it's like, oh, wow. That's Pan Am. That's TWA. That's United. You know, that Aircal. Oh, my gosh. We, you know, gotta have that. You know? And so with this and I really love airlines. And I am now in search of natives who are and who used to work for airlines. TWA, United, you know, AirCal, on and so forth. But it's like, there we are still a population that is in progress of wanting to continue our heritage. And I would like to be part of that and to continue that. And it's really great to be part of all the different areas where I can support. And I encourage each and every one of us to support these areas, because it is needed. Because, you know, the American Indian Culture Center needs to continue here in San Francisco. And I want to just encourage you to look in these areas and to discuss amongst yourselves and your area, your families, your friends. Hey. There's be some there's some Indians here. There's some Navajos here. There's some, you know, you know, this land that we used to live on, it's it wasn't ours, you know. That history needs to be said over and over and over. So, again, I do appreciate this this time that I can express, you know, my I'm just really grateful to be here. And thank you again for the awesome lunch. You know, it was really good to be around in a small room with other natives. Like, yeah. You know? So it's really cool. Thank you so much. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: District two supervisor Cheryl.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Oops. Excuse me. Colleagues, today, I am honored to commend Mary Anne Spencer Harvey in celebration of Native American Heritage Month. Mary Anne, would you please come forward to the podium?

[Mary Anne Spencer Harvey (Honoree; Native elder and volunteer)]: Hello.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Mary Anne, welcome. I am so honored to have you here. And not only because earlier we talked about our shared backyard of The Presidio, but the way that you spoke about The Presidio as your backyard, as our backyard, I thought really spoke volumes about your view on the world, your view on community, and your view on stewardship for all of us. Now, for those who haven't had the pleasure of meeting Mary Ann, she's a proud elder in the Native American community here in San Francisco. She takes great pride in her Dine heritage and membership in the Navajo Nation. Raised in Arizona close to her roots, her father was a silversmith and her mother a dietitian. Being raised so close to the Navajo Nation, her upbringing shaped her strong sense of cultural responsibility and care for others. And now she brings her heritage into her service as an elder, community volunteer, culture bearer. Since moving to San Francisco, Mary Ann has been a compassionate neighbor and an active volunteer with the American Indian Cultural District's Culture and Land Stewardship Program, which originated at Black Point Historic Garden. For those who don't know, the Black Point Garden, as Shreya mentioned, is a one acre hillside that connects the aquatic park with Fort Mason. And it's one of the many areas of special cultural and historical significance for the native community in Fort Mason. Mary Ann has been a dedicated steward of this garden, helping weed, prune, and plant the garden with a mix of native species and horticultural species. But beyond just her volunteering, Mary Anne is also known for her compassion for fellow seniors and neighbors, often conversing with those in her neighborhood, offering support, and building connections rooted in the Navajo value of caring for all people. Mary Ann's story reflects the broader native history of our city. The lands we stand on are the homelands of the Ramaytush Ohlone. And sites throughout District 2, including Fort Mason and the GGNRA, carry the history, knowledge, and stewardship of native peoples who have lived in this region for thousands of years. I'm extremely grateful that the American Indian Cultural District is headquartered in District 2. And I especially enjoy touring their offices to see the work that leaders like Shreya and others and her team do to strengthen visibility, cultural programming, and community support for native peoples citywide. Mary Ann's service exemplifies this work, helps keeps native history visible and honored in our city where indigenous peoples have lived, cared for the land, and shaped the region for thousands of years. So today, Mary Anne, we recognize you for your stewardship, for your cultural leadership, for your dedication to community. So thank you for serving our community, and congratulations. And I invite you to say a few words. Thank you.

[Mary Anne Spencer Harvey (Honoree; Native elder and volunteer)]: I'm dumbfounded.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: But I'm sorry. Hold on one second. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, president Madeline. Thank you so much, supervisor Cheryl, for this, well deserved commendation. And Mary Anne, thank you so much for continuing to steward Black Point, and especially for my generation, for future generations. This kind of stewardship continues to support the legacy of our peoples. And I just wanna thank you for making that possible for all San Francisco natives. Thank you so much, and congratulations.

[Mary Anne Spencer Harvey (Honoree; Native elder and volunteer)]: Thank you so much. You're so overwhelmed right now, except for one thing. And my friend knows this about we have always been known as the first people. That's our way. We're a community. No person is first. The San Francisco library has always been, in the past, first people when they got their newsletter out about us. First people. This year, it changed to first person. When I saw that, I was so insulted. I don't even go to the library anymore. It's not the way we are. We are not first person. We are first people. And my friend and I, we went we spoke to them about it at Alcatraz, and it was to a blank wall. So we need to change that to make it clear to everyone, because it's offending the elders. We've been here for a long while. We've taught our young people. We're a whole people. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: District one, supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I would like to invite, my neighbor, Julie Fisher, and, SEIU twenty fifteen members, to the podium. Colleagues, today, I am commending SEIU twenty fifteen, the in home supportive service providers. November is National Family Caregivers Month, and we're declaring today, November 18, in home supportive service providers day in San Francisco. In home supportive service, IHSS, providers play a vital role in supporting seniors and people with disabilities in San Francisco and greater, Bay Area, as well as California and across this country. Our in home supportive service providers ensuring that, our loved ones can live with dignity and independence in the comfort of their own homes. The providers and workers devote their time, compassion, and expertise to assist those in need with a spectrum of support from essentially essential daily activities to critical and intimate care service. The diligent work of in home caregivers, the majority of whom are women, and women of color, and immigrants often goes unknownness. Along with the financial struggles they and their families endure to provide this essential service and care to those in need, we are just so grateful for them. It is amazing just just how great they are. I am just in awe of how resilient and amazing and committed they are, not just to care for our loved ones and but also our community. And oftentimes, you see SEIU twenty fifteen members everywhere in a lot of community events supporting our community members, not just at their homes, but also communities all across San Francisco. And if I may, I wanna just say a few words in Chinese as well.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And before you speak, supervisor Chen.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Thank you, supervisor Chen, for uplifting SEIU twenty fifteen. Thank you. They are my family members. They watch me grow up. I I I, you know especially, I wanna shout out to Mei Chan. You know, Mei, it's definitely a community leader for San Francisco in our community. You you voluntarily participated a lot of the meeting, not only for the for SEIU twenty fifteen, but it's also very active in the community and paving back and and making sure that our community continue to be strong. And I don't wanna take more time, but I just wanna say home care saves life. Thank you. And I want to also say that home care provides dignity in our community, especially for the ones that the loved ones that we all care and that ones that you care. I also want to say a lot to the workers, and I think that's our say in Chinese, which I'm gonna do it. It's the work that you do, you we cannot use money to measure. So this is why I'm so proud that, I am your champion fighting, to make sure that not only we have we provide quality care, but we also provide quality jobs.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I will just add, thanks to the members of SAU twenty fifteen for all you do to care for our most vulnerable folks, and congratulations, and thank you, supervisor Chan, for this commendation.

[SEIU Local 2015 representative (IHSS provider)]: Dear esteemed colleagues and supervisors, I want to express my deepest gratitude for the opportunity to serve in the IHSS program. Working with you and for the people who trust our services has been an immense honor and privilege. Every day, we strive to provide the best care and attention to those who need it most. I greatly appreciate the trust placed in each of us, and I sincerely value the dedication of each person involved in this noble work. Together, we make a significant difference in the lives of those we serve. Thank you for your continued support and for being a fundamental part of this invaluable work.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: You'll get it. You'll get it. Okay.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: It's Johnny Rodriguez in the chamber. Come on up. Colleagues, it is my honor today to present, from District 8, a special commendation to Johnny Rodriguez. Johnny has improved countless lives through his work with the San Francisco Community Health Center and is an outspoken advocate for indigenous and LGBTQ plus communities. Currently, he works as the clinical program manager clinical program manager for the San Francisco Community Health Center, where he uses his ancestral medicine to help community members along their healing journeys. Through talking circles, ceremonies, community gatherings, and a decolonized approach to mental health, Johnny is committed to creating spaces for healing, justice, and connection. Outside of his work at SFCHC, Johnny works with organizations that lift up indigenous and queer people in San Francisco, including the annual Bay Area American Indian Two Spirits Pow Wow, one of the largest gatherings of two spirit and indigiqueer people in the country. The Bay Area Mexica Queer, Trans, and Two Spirit Collective, a collective that works to create welcoming spaces for queer and trans people in the Mexica or Aztec traditions, and the Indigenous Peoples Community Church. Recently, Johnny was elected to serve on the board of the l of the Leather and LGBTQ Cultural District. Johnny identifies as a two spirit elder in training. His ancestral roots come from the Nahuatl speaking people of Northern Mexico and Southern Texas. While working toward a master of social work at California State University Long Beach, Johnny worked closely with students and youth communities, providing guidance and mentorship. After graduating, Johnny continued to work as a community organizer for Khmer Girls in Action and as a youth services manager for the SF LGBT Center. Those who've worked with Johnny praise his ability to connect with others and work ethic and describe Johnny as an extraordinary advocate and an invaluable asset to his communities. With immense gratitude and appreciation, we thank you, Johnny, for your service to our city. And now the floor is yours.

[Johnny Rodriguez (SF Community Health Center; honoree)]: Thank you. I always like to start with giving deep gratitude to the ancestors and guardians of this place, to Ramaytush Ohlone. Thank you, President Mandelmann and the rest of the board for this opportunity. And thank you for Lance Stoma, my my boss, my CEO, who who, said my name and allowed me to be here today. I wanted to share sort of the teaching. It's It's a really nice bio. I was like, oh, wow. I forgot about some of those things. But one of the teachings that I learned early on and that I carry with me is that when the community needs you, you show up. And so throughout my life, since I was a teenager, probably, anytime I heard people needed help, they needed food, they needed guidance, I was there. And I continue that teaching today with all of the things that Madeline enlisted today. It was like, it's a lot of stuff. But I do it because I because I care about the community, because I care about the city. San Francisco is a city I love, and and I'm here to to do the work, to care for people when they need it. And as long as I'm capable, I will continue living that teaching of taking care of people when they need it. I also wanna say just just to give recognition that throughout history, queer, trans, and two spirit people have led all of our communities. So we always wanna make space to honor them, honor those ancestors and transcestors who have led the way for us in the past and even currently today. And the last thing I wanna say is to all my relations, thank you, and may your heart be present.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you, supervisor Fielder, for organizing us to to do that and honor honor those amazing folks. Now we should get to our 3PM special order, madam clerk. Yeah. Three 3PM special order.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. The first three PM special order. The board of supervisors has convened a committee of the whole, approval from, rescheduled 09/22/2020 through 11/18/2025. Item 37, this is a hearing of the board of supervisors convening a committee of the whole or for the members of the board to hear and receive updates on the progress and implementation status of the United States Department of Justice recommendations pertaining to reforms within the police department.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Madam and colleagues. This is the last time we will ask for a continuance on this item, and we ask that we continue this item to December 2.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. There's a motion to continue this hearing to December 2. Is there a second? Seconded by Fielder. Before we can act on that motion, we need to take public comment on the continuance. If anyone wants to talk about the continuance this is not general public comment. If anybody wants to talk about the continuance, come forward. And if not, public comment on the continuance is closed.

[Ken Yazzie (Honoree; SFO Museum Registrar)]: And, colleagues, as I said, we have

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: a motion to continue this hearing to the 12/02/2025, Board of Supervisors meeting. Can we take that motion without objection? I'm gonna send it to

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: you now.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Call, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We need a roll Alright. Let's do a roll call.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the motion to continue, item 37 to December 2. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmoud. Aye. Supervisor, Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, I. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, I. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, I. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, this hearing is continued to 12/02/2025. Madam clerk, let's go to our next 3PM special order. Please call items 38 through 41 together.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items 38 through 41 comprise a public hearing of persons interested in the approval of a final mitigated negative declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed project at 570 Market Street. Item 39 affirms the approval by the planning commission of, under under the CEQA for the proposed project. Item 40, this conditionally reverses the approval of the planning commission. And item 41 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings, reversing the approval.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. So colleagues, we have before us, as the clerk indicated, an appeal of the final mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project at 570 Market Street. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to affirm or conditionally reverse the planning commission's approval. We have two appellants for this project. And so unless there's an objection going forward in this way, we'll divide the presentation time between them, and we will proceed as follows, up to five minutes for each appellant for a total of ten minutes. Then public comment, in support of the appeal, two minutes per speaker, then up to ten minutes for a presentation from the city departments, then up to ten minutes for the project sponsor, then back to public comment with two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal, and finally, up to two minutes for each appellant, to make a rebuttal for a total of four minutes. If anyone objects, let me know. If we don't, we will proceed with the public hearing, which is now open. And before we before we hear from the from the appellant, appellants supervisor slaughter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Yes. Thank you, president Mantleman. I wanna begin by thanking the planning department, the project sponsors, and the appellants, for all your work on this appeal. It is in my district and District 3, by just a few feet on the north side of market. And since this appeal was filed, my office and I have met with the project sponsors of 570 Market, appellants from 44 Montgomery, and the planning department on this matter. So, I want us to be sure that we're clear about the question before us today, which is not about the project's design or merits, which will be considered at later stages. But today, the question before us rather is simply the if the environmental review that has been done is adequate. And so with that very brief introduction, be happy to turn it back to you, president Mandelmann, to begin our proceedings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. So we're gonna invite each of the panelists to come forward and present their case, each having five minutes. And I believe we're gonna start with representatives from for BCal forty four Montgomery Property LLC, Brian Flynn.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Let's get

[Brian Flynn (Attorney for appellant BCAL 44 Montgomery)]: that wonky. Good afternoon, president Mandelmann, honorable supervisors. My name is Brian Flynn. I'm a CEQA attorney with the law firm Lozar Jury here this afternoon on behalf of the appellant, BCAL forty four Montgomery property, who are the owners of 44 Montgomery Street. Forty four's Montgomery's position in this appeal is that the project's mitigated negative declaration, which is one of the lowest tiers of CEQA review, was improper and that a full environmental impact report is required for this project. CEQA has a strong preference for the preparation of an EIR over an MND. This is reflected in what is known as the fair argument standard. Under the fair argument standard, you need to prepare an EIR if there is any substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant impact. And importantly, if there's evidence of significant impacts, you need to prepare an EIR, even if there's contrary evidence on the other side. So as, as supervisor Sauter pointed out, the limited question in front of the board is not that you're not being asked to take a position on the project, but only on whether this project meets the low CEQA threshold for preparation of an EIR. And evidence that has been provided by forty four Montgomery and the other appellant affirmatively affirmatively establish that this project may result in significant impacts. In the limited time I have, I can't go into every impact in detail, but I'd like to give a summary. For noise impacts, we've submitted written comments that included an expert review of this project and MND. One of the main issues they found with this MND is that the MND assumed that sound would attenuate at a distant over distance at a rate of six decibels. Our expert pointed out that does not accurately reflect the conditions in the financial district where you have lots of tall buildings reflecting sound and creating canyon like environments. Our expert concluded that a three decibel, rate was more proper and accurate, and that that would result in significant noise impacts at the nearest res residences on Bush Street. And the planning department and the applicant have tried and will try to refute that expert tonight. But the board's job here is not to weigh conflicting evidence. Under that fair argument standard, our expert has provided credible evidence of possible significant impacts. So an EIR is required even if someone else disagrees. Our noise expert also found that the MND only analyzed absolute noise thresholds for the impacts to 44 Montgomery Street, the chance Finance Building, and others. But in addition to absolute noise thresholds, CEQA requires an analysis of the relative increase in noise over existing ambient levels. Our expert found that even if you used a conservative 20 decibel increase over, over, over ambient temperatures, that's double what the residential threshold would be, the project would result in significant noise impacts to 44 Montgomery and others. Again, under that fair argument standard, the experts provided credible evidence. And so the EIR is required, even if others disagree. There are also issues with vibration impacts. I wanna preface the discussion with the fact that 44 Montgomery, the Chancery Building, the Finance Building are all recognized historical resources. They all directly abut the proposed hotel. They're as close as a foot away. The MND concluded that the incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce the, vibration impacts to less than significant, but those measures are insufficient to conclude that the impacts won't be significant. The measures primarily consist of a series of actions and measures to be taken after vibration exceedances occur. In other words, the measures do not actually mitigate the impacts from happening, but only prescribe what to do after damage has been done. Again, under that fair argument standard, the fact that the MND's own vibration mitigation, for all purposes, assumes that the neighboring buildings may be damaged, establishes the fair argument that an EIR is required. Very briefly, we also submitted, evidence from a historical resources expert who concluded that the impacts of this project would be significant due to its size and massing on nearby historical resources, including 44 Montgomery, the Chancery Building, and Finance Building. We also submitted photos showing commercial congestion on Sutter Street that's only gonna be congested by this hotel, which is going to have all of its commercial deliveries. Drop offs for hotel guests and employees, would all happen on Sutter Street, not on Market Street. So for those reasons, the reasons we've discussed also in our written correspondence, I didn't have time for, and the reasons you'll hear from the other appellant, Forty four Montgomery is respectfully requesting that the board grant these appeals to ensure that this project goes through the proper amount of environmental review prior to approval as required by CEQA. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We I don't see any questions. So we will now hear from the representative for the second appellant, CPH564LP, and that is oh, I thought it was Anna Shimpko, but it's not Anna Shimpko. Hello? Oh, it will be. Okay.

[Zach Fady (Owner representative for adjacent Chancery/Townsend building)]: Sorry. Good afternoon. My name is Zach Fady. We own the Town Street building, which is adjacent to the proposed hotel. We have a small family business that we built through many years of hard work, and the economic viability of our building is critical for us. We have just suffered about five years of extreme economic hardship stemming from COVID and its after effects. And now that we're just coming up for air, the proposed hotel development will unnecessarily damage us and cause us another two or three years of economic hardship, which can be avoided if the project is properly evaluated. This is not a typical building site with adjacent solid wall, concrete walled buildings. We have a historic building with a 141 windows along and directly fronting the construction area. Much of the proposed building is 12 inches from our building, and the hotel lot is an average of 45 feet wide, which is a little more than two car lengths wide. So all construction work will be felt in our building. Our building does not have mechanical ventilation, and the only way to get fresh air is to open the windows. The windows are single pane glass, so even when they're closed, you actually hear a lot of loud sounds from outside. The MND construction noise estimates, which range between 92 decibels and 99 decibels, are calculated for sources at a distance of 20 feet. However, about half of the proposed hotel is one foot from our building, and the other half is about seven or eight feet from our building. So the construction noise levels will exceed the estimated levels. For context, 92 decibels is equivalent to the sound of a lawnmower at three foot distance. 95 decibels is equal to the sound of a jackhammer at 50 foot distance, and 99 decibels is equal to a car horn at 16 foot distance and causes ear damage after thirty minutes exposure. These noise levels, which again are the MND calculated levels for 20 foot distances and which will be exceeded due to the proximity of the work to our building will make our building very difficult to work in during periods of construction and will unnecessarily create a financial disaster for us. One cannot with a straight face say that two to three years of noise levels that vary between the noise of a lawnmower, a jackhammer, and a car horn are not significant enough to justify an EIR study, which would identify and provide mitigation plan for such noise. It is certain, as verified by experts, that our building will suffer from exposure to excessive noise, vibration, and construction dust, and we will suffer other damages that our lawyer will cover. The current CEQA document does not recognize or mitigate such significant impacts and thus does not meet legal standards. Please direct that a full EIR be prepared so the environmental and health impacts can be properly examined and considered and effective mitigation strategies can be evaluated. Thank you.

[Anna Shimko (Counsel for the second appellant)]: Anna Shimko, counsel for the appellant. Mister Flynn articulated the legal standard quite well. The MND acknowledges that the project's vibration impacts will be significant. That will especially be true to our client's historic building. The flaw of the MND is the conclusion that the mitigation measure will overcome this significant vibration impact. Our structural engineer opined that the Chancery Building's old foundation is extremely sensitive to vibration from construction activity nearby, and there could be catastrophic effects. That is an expert opinion that must be given weight in this process. The measure orders periodic inspections to see if damage has occurred, in which case the impact was already significant and unavoidable. Requiring that damage be fixed later doesn't avoid damage. The mitigation measure also relies on buffer distances from construction activities. That's not feasible because the project site itself is narrow at only 40 feet wide, and the project site itself is narrow at only 40 feet wide, and the project walls would be built as near as one foot to the Chancery Building. So it's not possible to be, for instance, 20 feet away. Finally, the mitigation measure envisions that alternative construction equipment and techniques can be used if vibration exceeds the threshold. In flagrant violation of established sequel requirements about performance standards and deferred mitigation measures, the MND fails entirely to show whether such alternatives actually exist or which equipment or techniques would comprise those alternatives. That impact remains significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measure is inadequate. There are also impacts with respect to noise, air quality, dust, historic aesthetic, all documented in the record that compel the preparation of an EIR in this circumstance. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. I do not see anyone in the queue to ask questions of the appellants. And so let's open up public comment, specifically for those who'd like to speak in support of the appeal and in opposition to the project. Madam Clerk, will you call the first speaker if we have any?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Great. If you wouldn't mind coming on up to the front, if you are here to provide public comment on behalf of the appellant or the appellant's representative. Alright. Mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Public comment is now closed. Now we're gonna have ten minutes for representatives of the city departments.

[Ryan Shum (Senior Planner, SF Planning Department)]: Good afternoon, President Mandelmann and supervisors. I'm Ryan Shum, senior planner in for the proposed 570 Market Street project. The decision before you is whether to affirm or reverse the planning commission's decision to approve the FMND. As noted, the planning commission approved the preliminary MND and rejected the PMND appeals on May 1. And on October 10, the same two appellants filed separate appeals of the FMND. The department clearly reviewed all materials submitted by the appellants, and they do not alter our conclusion that an MND is the appropriate level of environmental review. The project would replace two existing two story commercial buildings with a 29 story hotel and a 4,200 square foot public open space on the 15th Floor. The new hotel would not include any off street vehicle parking and would replace the existing commercial loading zone on Sutter Street with a passenger loading zone. Project construction is anticipated to last approximately twenty four months. The presentation focuses on the primary topics brought forth by the appellants, geology and soils, construction noise and vibration, and historic preservation. The appellants also raised questions regarding construction air quality, freight loading, and shadow, and the department has addressed these topics in the appeal response. As I will discuss in this presentation, the appellants have not met the legal burden of proof to demonstrate that the project could have a significant and unavoidable impact, and staff respectfully recommends that the board affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve the FMND. To begin with, staff would like to respond to one of the main concerns raised by the appellants, which is that the FMND did not adequately analyze the geotechnical impacts of its construction on nearby buildings. This contention is incorrect. For environmental review, the department considers the question of whether construction of a project could have a substantial adverse effect on soils or geologic features on the project site, and ultimately, whether a project could be feasibly constructed and supported by the underlying site conditions. With respect to this question, the geotechnical report concluded that the building is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Environmental review takes into account that the project would be required to undergo more detailed review by the building department at a later stage. This is not a deferral of mitigation or study as claimed by the appellants. DBI typically occurs DBI review typically occurs after the CEQA process and project approvals, but before construction permits are issued. The review includes an assessment of the project's proposed foundation system and its appropriateness for the the structure and ground conditions on the site, as well as the potential effects of construction activities, the predicted foundation settlement, and the project's predicted long term interaction with foundations of existing adjacent and nearby structures. Additionally, for tall buildings such as the project, an independent engineering review of the geotechnical and structural design by a four person panel of experts would be required. As such, the project effects on nearby buildings will be evaluated and will ensure that the building can be safely constructed. Through this regulatory process, the city ensures that significant impacts related to geology and soils do not occur, and therefore separate CEQA mitigation is not required. CEQA review is based on architectural level plans, which illustrate the proposed project elements and assess feasibility, but do not include the detailed structural information found in permit level or construction level plans. It's important to note that permit level plans are not expected nor required for environmental review. After environmental review is completed and once a project is approved, qualified staff and other city departments will conduct detailed technical review, and the project will be required to update its construction documents as needed to ensure compliance with state and local building code. This review is mandatory, and project sponsors must comply. The appellants have not demonstrated how a significant impact could occur with the project's required compliance with the DBI process and state and local code. With respect to the construction noise, the appellants contend that the construction noise analysis was improperly calculated. But, as detailed in the department's appeal response, the appellant's analysis is inaccurate and misleading because it conflates two different methodologies and does not follow the general assessment methodologies that the assess that the appellant's claim should be utilized. Commercial offices are not considered sensitive receptors unless the commercial receptor is exposed to noise levels of 100 decibels or higher. The FMND noise analysis confirmed that this would not be the case. The FMND properly assessed the project's construction noise impacts in accordance with the city's evaluation guidelines, and the department's analysis uses the correct noise attenuation factor and equipment usage factor. The appellants also contend that the presence of mid to high rise buildings downtown would lead to a canyoning effect for sound such that construction noise could be focused, reflected, or amplified. Based in part on this notion, the appellants contend that the noise analysis should use even more conservative noise attenuation factor that differs from the general FTA methodology. However, as shown in this figure, with the red being the project site and the yellow being the sensitive receptor, The nearby buildings are oriented in such a way that construction noise from the project site would likely be reflected away from the nearest sensitive receptor and is unlikely to be amplified. The appellants also do not provide detailed calculations to support this contention, and such a calculation would require accounting for numerous variables, including the composition of nearby building materials, the location of the construction sound source relative to the receptor, the angle of nearby buildings that could reflect sound, and more. Therefore, the appellant's contention is speculative and does not support a fair argument. The appellant also contend that the project would result in significant construction vibration impacts to nearby structures, but did not provide any specific evidence to support this assertion. Consistent with CEQA, we conservatively analyzed the project's impacts and determined that the project could have a significant impact, but that mitigation would reduce the risk to a less than significant level. This conclusion is based on substantial evidence. As described in the FMND, the vibration mitigation would require a project specific vibration management and monitoring plan to employ all feasible means to avoid damage to nearby structures, including procedures to actively monitor vibration levels at the construction site. It's important to note that contrary to the appellant's assertion, the Caltrans vibration standards are guidelines for assessing potential vibration damage and not bright line thresholds. This is because all buildings are constructed slightly differently and are supported by different underlying soil conditions and surroundings. As a result, construction vibration interacts with buildings to varying degrees, and there is no bright line threshold above which vibration impacts are certain to occur. Therefore, the appellant's contention that any exceedance of the threshold would result in a significant impact is incorrect. Furthermore, the appellant's contention that catastrophic irreparable damage could occur, even with stop work provisions required by the vibration monitoring plan, is speculative, and the appellants have not met the legal burden of proof of providing substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the vibration mitigation measure would be inadequate. Lastly, we would like to briefly touch on historic preservation. The department's preservation analysis was based on the subject building's historic resource evaluation response, which identified all adjacent and nearby historic resources, including the Chancery Building and 44 Montgomery Street. These buildings were accounted for in the preservation analysis. The AHRE also clearly concluded that the property is not part of a designated or eligible historic district, noting, the subject property does not appear to be part of a significant concentration of historically or architecturally unified buildings, such that it would rise to a level of an eligible historic district. Finally, the project's construction would not demolish or materially impair the character defining features on adjacent properties, such that their historic status could be altered. Thus, no significant impact related to historic resources would occur. In conclusion, the FMND fully supports the findings that the project would not result in significant impacts that could not be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. These findings are based on substantial evidence in the record, and the appellants have not provided substantial evidence based on facts to support a fair argument to require the preparation of an EIR. Additional studies would not yield different results from what has already been disclosed in the FMND, and the EIR process would not alter the MND conclusions, nor provide any meaningful analysis beyond what was already conducted in the MND. For these reasons, the department respectfully recommends that the board affirms the planning department's the planning commission's decision to approve the FMND. Thank you very much for your attention. I'm joined by my colleagues, Chelsea Fordham and Tanya Schaner, who are available to answer any questions.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you. I do not see any questions from my colleagues. And so now, we'll go to the project sponsor for up to ten minutes.

[Melinda Sarjentpour (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP), counsel for project sponsor]: Good afternoon. Melinda Sarjapour, Ruben, Junious, and Rose. I'm here on behalf of the project sponsor, Frontier Development Group. The planning department has provided a thorough technical response to appellant's concerns, project has no potential for significant environmental impacts. Starting off sorry. It's important to understand the standard of review on appeal of MMD. The key question is whether appellants have provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant impact. CEQA is very clear that not all information rises to the level of substantial evidence. Substantial evidence must be supported by facts in the record. Argument, speculation about potential impacts, inaccurate or erroneous information is not substantial evidence. Simply providing consultant opinions that are based on speculation or that contain inaccurate or misleading information does not meet this standard. Further, the commission must give the city the benefit of the doubt on the legitimate disputed issues of credibility in the evidence presented. Appellants have not met this standard. Their appeal letters and supporting documents touch on a broad range of topics, essentially raising every possible to concern to see if anything will stick, but they do not provide substantial evidence under CEQA. Instead, their materials are filled with conjecture, opinion, erroneous or misleading statements, and speculation unsupported by fact. This is not enough to overturn the MND. By contrast, the MND is supported by substantial evidence. It's a 130 page document with addenda containing detailed technical studies prepared by qualified independent consultants applying established review standards, and subject to thorough review by department staff. Planning's response to this appeal has walked through each of appellant's concerns in detail and explained why their comments and supporting materials do not contain substantial evidence. We have provided similar information in our brief. Appell appellant's concerns were also raised in their initial appeals to this MD and D to the planning commission in April and were appropriately rejected at that time. Now I'll touch base on just a few of the topics that were raised. First, appellant speculate that the project could have geotechnical impacts related to soil settlement, dewatering, or liquefaction. These claims have no factual basis. The MND appropriately analyzes the potential for impacts to soil or geologic features and whether a project could be feasibly constructed based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation report. This document was prepared by a licensed consultant, in this case, Langan, that has more than five decades of expertise and experience in the field. In determining that no significant impact could occur, the MND also properly accounts for the existence of stringent local and state building code requirements and preconstruction review processes for foundation and structural design. Among other things, these standards require independent structural and geotechnical design level review by qualified professionals based on construction level drawings and calculations that are developed during building permit review. The project must implement these requirements as a matter of law. CEQA is clear that local agencies may rely on compliance with state and local building code requirements like these in determining potential for impact. So the MND is consistent with both the city standard process for structural review and CEQA standards. Appellants provide no substantial evidence that an impact may occur at this particular site despite these well established requirements. Secondly, appellants claim without support that the project may result in construction noise impacts. They provide multiple letters from their private consultant, Wilson Earring, attacking the MND noise analysis. However, these materials contain inaccurate and misleading information that does not rise to the level of substantial evidence. As discussed by staff, Wilson Earring claims, among other things, that the MND should have applied a usage factor of one under the FTA general assessment methodology. However, a supplemental analysis prepared by the project's noise consultant shows that even with the requested usage factor applied, the project still would not result in a significant impact. So that concern, it may is meritless. Wilson and Eric also attempts to cherry pick between review standards applied in different FDA assessment methodologies while ignoring other nuanced factors. They speculate that if only specific, highly conservative review criteria were applied in a vacuum, the project might then exceed noise thresholds. This is an improper methodology designed to generate an unrealistic forecast of impacts and simply does not rise to the level of substantial evidence under CEQA. Similarly, appellants provide no substantial evidence to support their claims that the project could result in significant vibration impacts despite applied mitigations. The MND finds that neighboring buildings could be affected by construction vibration, but applies appropriate site specific monitoring and vibration measures that would reduce that impact to less than significant. The vibration mitigations adopted

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: are standards that have

[Melinda Sarjentpour (Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP), counsel for project sponsor]: been applied for other similarly situated sites near are standards that have been applied for other similarly situated sites near historic resources across the city successfully. Among other items, the vibration mitigation requires a preconstruction survey to document the condition of adjacent buildings, preparation of a monitoring plan by a qualified consultant that will be subject to staff review and approval, establishing maximum allowable vibration thresholds and methods for vibration monitoring, submittal of monthly reports of any vibration exceedance and actions to reduce vibration should that occur, and periodic inspections throughout construction with any required remediations overseen by a qualified preservation professional. Appellants provide no substantial evidence that significant vibration impacts could occur despite these detailed measures. Further, appellant's claims that the MND improperly defers vibration mitigation are incorrect. CEQA expressly allows details of project mitigation to be developed after approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include them during environmental review As long as the MND commits itself to mitigation actions, adopts performance standards they will achieve, and identifies the types of potential actions that can be feasibly achieved by those standards, the project's mitigation meets those criteria. Appellants also argue that the project could have significant historic impacts on historic resources. They provide a letter from Katie Petrin Consulting claiming that the MND did not accurately describe nearby resources and failed to analyze a theoretical historical district in the same block. Both claims are incorrect. The MND and supporting materials thoroughly describe nearby resources and include a finding that buildings on the subject block would not qualify as a historic district. Appellants provide no evidence suggesting otherwise. The MND does provide substantial evidence that no impact to historic resources would occur, including detailed analysis related to geology, noise, and vibration. Overall, appellants have not met their burden to overturn the MND. Because they provide no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant impacts, we ask that the commission uphold the MND. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. I do not see comments or questions from colleagues. And so we will now open public comment to speakers in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project who will have two minutes each. Madam Clerk.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Welcome to our first speaker.

[Jesus Mendoza (NorCal Carpenters Union)]: Good afternoon, president and members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jesus Mendoza, and I am a field representative for the NorCal Carpenters Union. I am speaking today on behalf of the working men and women who have for over one hundred years built and maintained this beautiful city. I am here in opposition to the appeal and in full support of the planning commission's approval of the proposed 570 Market Street hotel development. For labor, this project represents more than construction. It represents steady, middle class jobs that allow our members to build the communities they serve. Every major project like this keeps hundreds of skilled union workers employed during a time when we do not see significant construction activity in San Francisco. Keep in mind that a commitment to use a union general contractor creates opportunity for families sustaining careers that help stabilize San Francisco's economy at a time when the downtown core urgently needs investment. The planning commission did its due diligence. The environmental review was thorough, transparent, and granted in substantial evidence. The final m and d identifies impacts and requires mitigation measures that our members are fully prepared to meet. The appeal does not present new information or any evidence of significant unaddressed environmental impacts. What it would do is introduce unnecessary delays, grand jobs, and undermine competence in a fair and predictable and predictable sequel process. San Francisco cannot afford to stall responsible development that both protects the environment and puts people to work. That's why I respectfully urge you to affirm the approval of the final MND. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and thank you for standing with working people.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Rudy Gonzalez (SF Building & Construction Trades Council)]: Thank you, madam clerk. And, it's a pleasure to be in front of the staff and the distinguished members of the full board of supervisors. My name is Rudy Gonzalez from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. I represent, 27 locals here in the city. And I wish I could because I rarely take a pass at tugging at your heartstrings. I wish I could make this about union or non union or high road jobs or low road jobs. But this is, as supervisor Sauter said, a very technical, but important step in the process as it relates to whether or not you believe that there's substantial evidence here and if a, EIR is going to be the result of that. So first, under CEQA, the appellants have to provide you with substantial evidence showing that the project may cause a significant environmental impact. We don't believe they've met that burden, respectfully. The planning department's analysis is thorough. The it uses accepted technical standards, and clearly demonstrated that with mitigation, with mitigation, that this project will will not result in significant impacts. I'm gonna touch on a couple little spots here. On the geology and construction impacts, I think that's been raised significantly. The department relied on a qualified geotech study, required compliance with strict building codes here in the city and monitoring. The appellant's claims about catastrophic settlement or damage are speculative and importantly not supported by the project specific evidence. Although, they're reasonable considerations for anyone to have on a neighboring project. I also wanna touch on, loading, transportation, and shadows. Those are matters that typically come before this body. The department correctly found that no significant impacts, were present. The appellants offered no contrary data on those points, only photos and somewhat generalized concerns. Across every single topic raised by the appellants, the pattern's the same. The department has provided evidence and mitigation, and the appellants provide speculation. CEQA does not require an EIR based on speculation for all these reasons and because the project has been responsibly reviewed with enforceable mitigation. I respectfully request you affirm the planning commission's adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and deny the appeal.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Anand Singh (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Thank you, supervisors. My name is Anand Singh here representing Unite Here Local two, the hotel workers union in the city. I'm not gonna repeat a lot of what was just said. I'm in agreement with my siblings in labor and Rudy Gonzalez who just spoke about we're just not tugging at your heartstrings. We can do that, and that's important for us and our members. But on the specific merits of the appeal, we're urging you to reject the appeal and support the planning department's final mitigated negative declaration. We do not believe the appellants have provided the substantial evidence that CEQA requires to show this project could cause significant environmental impacts. And in really every category, and Rudy just went through a number of them, the department's findings are grounded in evidence and the appeal is not. So we urge you strongly to affirm the FMND and deny the appeal. Thank you very much.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Alright. Are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment on behalf of the appellant excuse me, on behalf of the project sponsor against the appellant? Alright, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Public comment is now closed. So last, we're gonna invite the appellants to present a rebuttal argument. Each of them will get two minutes, and we'll start with mister Flynn.

[Brian Flynn (Attorney for appellant BCAL 44 Montgomery)]: Thank you, Brian Flynn, again, for 44 Montgomery. I really think we just need backing up in what I started this, hearing with was talking about this standard, this fair argument standard, where if you've got, expert evidence in the record saying that there may be a significant impact, it is not the board's job to be weighing that against, against contrary evidence or against what other experts think. And if you go through the the presentation by staff and the applicant, a lot of that is just trying to throw our experts under the bus. They're trying to say our experts are inaccurate and therefore speculative, and you shouldn't and you shouldn't follow them. That is a disagreement about how methodology was done, a difference in how calculations were done based on the conditions for this project. Again, you know, according to the planning department, it is completely reasonable to assume that sound is going to attenuate like it does in an open field on on Market Street in the Financial District. That is not a reasonable assumption, but that's not the point here. We're not just trying to take down the planning department's experts. The point is that we have experts in the record. We have experts on noise. We have experts on historical resources. The, other appellant has expert on geotechnical risks that have and they these are these are, credentialed experts. They I don't think their expertise is being called into question in any way. They have done their own review. They have decided that this project may result in significant impacts. So therefore, an e an MND is not the proper level of CEQA review for this project, and it has to go through the EIR process. Very quickly, you know, there was a planning had had insinuated that an EIR will just produce the same results here. That's not the point. You know, it is a procedural violation of CEQA to proceed with an m n MND when you should have done an EIR. The EIR gives heightened, comment protections, and also gives more protections to the city when they make their decision that you can then defer to your experts and not pay attention to our experts on this MND. Our experts have established this impact, so an EIR is required. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And now from the second appellant.

[Anna Shimko (Counsel for the second appellant)]: Good afternoon. Anna Shimko for the appellant. We also have submitted credible evidence from two experts, one noise and vibration, and one structural engineer, opining the project may have a significant may have significant impacts. Therefore, an EIR is legally required. It's not your job to judge which expert is right. As to vibration, while the planning, department responded that real time vibration monitoring can address the issue, the mitigation measure itself does not specifically require that, and it should do so. The mitigation measure is simply flawed. It anticipates significant and unavoidable impacts in damage from construction. It establishes maximum levels of vibration, but then it's only honored in the breach, and thus impacts will occur. And there's no evidence that there are means to achieve the stated performance standard. On construction noise, the MND states that construction noise 20 feet away would be up to 99 dBA. This exceeds both federal and state agency health standards, where workers are required to wear hearing protection when noise is over an 80 d b 85 d b a level. As noted, the planning department stated that the an EIR process would not show any different results. That may and may not be true. However, we would get rid of the fiction that a mitigated negative declaration is forced to maintain that there are no significant unavoidable impacts that the decision makers need to balance and weigh, and decide whether approving the project is worthy of overcoming those impacts. We hope that you will order that an EIR be prepared, and we thank you for listening.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. And, with that, this public hearing has been held and is now filed. Supervisor Slaughter. Thank you,

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: supervisor president Mandelmann. And I wanna thank, everyone who participated, and for my colleagues as well. I wanna maybe summarize what I've heard, and then I'll make a motion. As we've seen in the past hour, the planning department has explained that they've prepared a mitigated negative declaration, an MND as you've heard it referred to. It's a 130 page document in this case, which identified mitigation measures that reduce all potential impacts to levels below the level of significance. For example, reducing any noise, vibration, air quality, cultural resource impacts. Planning department also identified regulatory requirements that would apply and would ensure that there are no impacts. For example, those related to geology and soils. This review has been done over several years, and the project in this case was first proposed six years ago in 2019. From what I've learned, I believe that the appellants have not met their burden under CEQA to show that there may be any impacts not already adequately addressed through the MND. They have not satisfied the fair argument standard because their arguments are speculative. They're not based on substantial evidence, which need to be based on facts. The appellants may disagree with the department's findings, but their arguments are not supported by substantial evidence in this case. Earlier this year, I think it's important to note the project's MND was also appealed to the planning commission, where that appeal was denied. And, given all this, I believe the M and D is adequate, well done, and this project does not warrant further environmental review. So with that in mind, I would like to make a motion. And that motion would be to approve item 39, affirming the planning commission's approval of the final mitigated negative declaration and tabling items forty and forty one.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by Mahmoud. And if there's no further discussion, we will vote on the motion made by supervisor Sauter, seconded by supervisor Mahmood, to affirm the final mitigated negative declaration, approving item number 39 and tabling items number forty and forty one. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the motion to approve item 39 in table forty and forty one, supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Sheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan?

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Chan, aye. And supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, item number 39 is approved. Items forty and forty one are tabled. And that concludes our 3PM special our second 3PM special order. And now, we will go back to, I believe, madam clerk, item 35.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 35. This is a motion to appoint Barbara Ellen Walden, residency requirement waived, and Monique Guidry to the early childhood community oversight and advisory committee, terms ending 10/08/2027.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Please call the roll.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 35, supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the motion is approved. Madam clerk, please call item number 36.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 36. This is a motion to appoint Chanel Williams, Julia D'Antonio, and William William Lemon to the Our City, Our Home Oversight Committee, terms ending 04/22/2027.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, I have the utmost respect for mister William Lemon, who has been nominated for c eight. I have personally benefited from his leadership at at the Castro Country Club, as someone who's taken part in ACA meetings the past few years, as I have family that continue to reckon with addiction and dysfunctional family issues. However, I'd like to have a vote on this seat separate from the rest of the seats, and express my concern about what it means. This seat requires someone with experience in homelessness or mental health advocacy. And his vote today will unseat a long time homelessness advocate here in San Francisco. Jennifer Friedenbach has committed the last thirty four years to ending mass homelessness by addressing structural causes. Her work has been developing consensus on solutions on the homeless crisis, centered on the experience and expertise of those who have survived or are still living without housing. She has developed historic data driven policies with policymakers across the political spectrum, including writing and passing the original Our City, Our Home measure, which established this very committee. And I'm deeply concerned that her removal is retaliation for her outspoken support of the empirically proven Housing First model that this measure supports by taxing the wealthiest corporations in the city. Across 26 rigorous studies, doing Housing First decreased homelessness by 88%. Our City, Our Home funded programs have added and sustained more than 5,298 total units of capacity since the fund's inception in fiscal year 'twenty one, with a net eight zero seven units of capacity added in fiscal year 'twenty four. Between 2023 and 2024, over 97% of supportive housing residents retained their housing. As the city continued implementation of new programming since the launch of the fund, the number of households served has grown year over year. 18 and a half thousand people served in 2022, 27,000 in 2023, and 37 and a half thousand in 2024. Her removal portends further undermining of the Our City Our Home measure, which has been the foremost effective solution for getting people permanently off the streets and into housing. Her application to be reappointed came with several letters and emails of support from experts in this city's homeless advocacy network. It is baffling to me that one of the main advocates behind this measure that created this body is being removed. Her removal is very concerning

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: for

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: anyone invested in truly solving homelessness, rather than moving people from one block to another. So with that, all I'm asking for is a vote to specifically vote on, seat eight. So I will move to divide the question.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I think it's the sole right of any member to to divide a question, so I don't think we need to vote on that. I think we can and if further comments are on, specifically, on Lemon's appointment, perhaps we ought to take Williams and D'Antonio first, and then we can discuss.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mister president Yeah. I would suggest you take the divided portion first because whether it, wins or loses, what we do is we fold it back into the remainder of the item.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Okay. Okay. Alright. So we alright. So we will continue to discuss. Supervisor Dorsey.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I am incredibly proud to support Billy Lemmon's appointment to the Our City, Our Home oversight committee. He is an extraordinary leader from the LGBTQ plus community, as well as from our recovery community. And for reasons I'll explain, I think his perspective and his voice are desperately needed in our city right now. Mister Lemon leads an institution that has played and continues to play a foundational role in my own recovery journey, and it's no exaggeration for me to say that the Castro country club he leads has helped to save my life. And I know I am among hundreds and perhaps thousands of others in this city who feel that way. I have seen the saving grace this institution extends to those struggling with addiction and alcoholism, including those who are homeless. And that is precisely because of the inclusive, welcoming, and collaborative approach that Billy Lemmon employs in his leadership of the Castro Country Club. Mister Lemon led this institution out of its darkest days of near closure some fifteen years ago to become a thriving, sober community space that, I believe, should be a model for more recovery community spaces like it citywide in the future. The seat being contested here is for an individual with experience advocating on homelessness or mental health issues. And there is no mental health issue facing our city today, not one, more consequential or more impactful than substance use disorders and alcohol use disorders. At a moment when we are finally beginning to make real progress on drug free and recovery oriented housing options at the state level and at the local level, Billy Lemmon's perspective and voice are needed on this committee. He is a remarkable leader, and he brings exactly the experience and expertise our city needs on homelessness and mental health services right now. As I said at the rules committee hearing where this item was considered, sometimes there are appointments we make to boards and advisory bodies that reflect needed directional change in the city, rather than a rejection of any individual. The appointments this is this, I think, is an appointment that says more about the city and where it needs to go than the caliber of rival appoint applicants who are also vying for the position. And I think that's the case here. So I hope Billy Lemon will earn this board's support for this position.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, President Mandelmann. I think this is absolutely a very tough one. As I looked at, the quali very qualified individuals here. But I also concur the sentiment expressed by supervisor Fielder. Jenny Fieden Bach has done a lot of work and really, know the Our City, Our Home measure itself, really, had a clear understanding what it's about. If it weren't through the conversation during budget process, having those in-depth conversation prior to the budget process with her, really helped, at least me, as an individual, really have a better understanding of the measure, and really how do we wanna fund, different type of project and programming that is really meeting, housing first policy, which I am a firm believer, of. So with that, the but this is also a tough one. I wanna also commend, you know, Bill Lemon, for his commitment, to willing to serve. This is, by the way, a volunteer position. It is not paid. And in fact, spend individuals, willing who are willing to serve spend a lot of their time, to, help solve a really critical problem that our city been facing for a long time. So I I just, again, wanna express my gratitude to all the appointees, that are moving forward and recommended by the rules committee. Thank you so much for throwing your hat in the ring. But at the same time, today, I I will be supportive of at least the first round of what, supervisor Schilder has proposed. But I I wanna commend everyone that is appointed today, or, well, as appointee being recommended today. Thank you so much for your service and willingness to serve. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chen.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I I would like to echo what what, supervisor Chen just shared. I'm I think the city of San Francisco is so lucky that we have, you know, very experienced expertise in the in the area, and also very compassionate people willing to continue to serve San Francisco. I look forward to meeting, mister Lemon. But I actually also had the opportunity with the budget process, having, Jenny coming into my office, you know, multiple times through it and doing the process to come and educate me about, the expertise and the needs of this, community was very helpful and informative for me to make decision. So it it's a hard one. But I also want to say, I I would appreciate the willingness to continue to serve San Francisco. And I also believe that Jenny, with thirty years of services in homelessness and advocating for this community. And and my very own fair as a new supervisor, very own, very limited, interaction with her. She is very qualified. And and I will be supporting her too. Thanks.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Sherrill.

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: I just want to express my support for Billy Lemmon in my conversations with him and with others. It's just exceedingly clear that he has a strong history of advocacy. And his work in recovery for substance use disorder for mental health is incredibly important to the future. When we look at our city right now, estimates range upwards of eighty percent of the individuals on our streets today are suffering from some combination of substance use disorder and mental health challenges. And Billy Lemon's history of advocacy, of work, and success in that work, I think provides us with hope for the future and is someone who I am excited to be able to support in this incredibly difficult work.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Supervisor Mahmoud? I was hoping for some clarification on what the vote because we've already divided the questions. The vote at hand is about Billy Lemmon, not of any other candidate. Correct?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: First vote will be on mister Lemmon.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: And it's to approve them to the commission? Okay.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud. I promised supervisor Walton I wouldn't add too much. I do just wanna say about about Billy Lemmon that after the after the committee hearing on this, he'd called me because he was concerned. I think there are people who very much wanna make a change on this body, and I'm one of those folks. But he wanted it to be clear that he is not a partisan, and that he and one of the things that I think is so great about him is his interest and willingness in working with lots of different kinds of people who may, not agree about the things that we fight about, in this building and outside the building. With that, madam clerk, could you call the roll on mister Lemon's appointment?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the divided portion represented by William Lemon on

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Hold up. Quick question. A yes is we are supporting, or would I just wanna know what yes or no means.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Yes is he goes on. No is he does not.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. On the divided portion represented, by William Lemon, seat eight, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor, Fielder. Fielder, no. Supervisor, Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, I. Supervisor, Sautter? Aye. Sautter, I. Supervisor, Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, I. Supervisor, Walton? Aye. Walton, I. Supervisor, Chan? No. Chan, no. Supervisor Chen? Chen, no. There are six ayes and four nos with supervisors Fielder, Walton, Chan, and Chen voting no. Walton's

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: an aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Oh, okay. My apologies. Supervisor Walton, there are seven ayes and three nos with supervisors Fielder, Chan, and Chen voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The motion to approve mister Lemon is approved. And now we take the rest. Is that right? Yes. Yes. Alright. Madam, quick, can you please call the roll on the remainder of the divided question?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the remainder, the this is represented by Chanel Williams for seat two and Julia D'Antonio for seat six. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud, I. Supervisor Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Sheryl, aye. Supervisor, Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor, Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. And supervisor, Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the motion is approved. Madam Clerk, let's go to committee reports.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. We have our committee reports today. Items forty two and forty three were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, were recommended as committee reports. Item 42 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to create the Fillmore Entertainment Zone on Fillmore Street between Sutter And McAllister Streets and O'Farrell Street between Steiner And Fillmore Streets and to affirm the CEQA determination.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think we can take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 43.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 43 was recommended as amended with a new title to confirm the appointee. Item 43 confirms the controller's appointment of Alexandra Shepherd as inspector general for an indefinite term.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And again, same house, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved. And madam clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: First member up to introduce new business is supervisor Dorsey. Submit. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Fielder. Submit. Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Colleagues today, I would like to introduce an in memoriam to honor the life of Alice Wong, a giant in the disability justice community and a prolific writer whose work continues to impact the lives of millions. Alice passed away last week on November 14 at UCSF. She was only 51. And though her life was shaped by a progressive neuromuscular condition, she pushed past every limit anyone ever placed on her. When doctors told her as a young girl that she may not live to 18, she did what she always did. She proved them wrong and built a life full of purpose. She was born in Indianapolis to immigrant parents from Hong Kong. And she carried her heritage with her when she came to San Francisco for graduate school at UCSF. The city became her home, and she poured herself into the fight for inclusivity and justice. Alice's advocacy led her to found the disability visibility project, which started as a grassroots effort to collect stories within the disability community and grew into a national force. She shifted culture by insisting that disabled people tell their own stories and be centered in every conversation about policy and identity. Through her books, including her 2022 memoir, Year of the Tiger, she gave the world a clearer picture of disability, one that is multifaceted and deeply human. She fought for access in every sense of the word. She sees national attention through her unwavering support of human rights and liberation of Palestinians through crips for eSIMs for Gaza, enlisted the supportive community through access as love, and remained steadfast in assisting representation across platforms, the same platforms that open doors for disable disabled writers such as herself. Alice understood that in using her voice, she could uplift and set the example for others who felt voiceless. This is the type of leader that she was. Her life's work won national recognition, including being named a 2023 MacArthur Genius Fellow, but anyone who knew her will tell you that the public accolades were only footnotes in her saga. Alice built relationships. She mentored young activists. She supported inclusive spaces so joy and humor could thrive. She believed deeply in the bonds we create with each other, which she herself described as a web of connective tissue that keeps our ancestors alive among us. During my last visit with her, we talked about pedestrian safety and raised crosswalks. We ranked our favorite Star Wars films and shared our favorite characters. We nerded out. Even though I didn't meet her until earlier this year, she repeatedly encouraged me to seek support in my autistic community here in San Francisco. I see now that that wasn't a simple recommendation to fill small talk, but an extension of her greater life's mission, to always be connecting others. I will deeply miss our conversations. Today, we feel the weight of her loss, not just as a city, but as a community of individuals who are moved by her profoundness, by her humor, and by her stubborn belief in the innate goodness of humankind. Her legacy lives on in the movement she ignited, the voices she spotlit, the leaders she mentored, and the world she insisted we could create together. A world, I hope, colleagues, we can work toward in her honor. Alice, thank you for everything you gave this city. We honor you by continuing the fight you led, by telling the stories you insisted had to be told and by seeking a future that is accessible to all. We'll honor you by building friendship and remembering, no matter the challenges, that we're all connected. And this time, I'd like to uplift Alice's final words to the public in this chamber. Alice wrote, hi, everyone. It looks like I ran out of time. I have so many dreams that I wanted to fulfill and plans to create new stories for you. There are a few in progress that might come to fruition in a few years if things work out. I did not ever imagine I would live to this age and end up a writer, editor, activist, and more. As a kid riddled with insecurity and internalized ableism, I could not see a path forward. It was thanks to friendships and some great teachers who believed in me that I was able to fight my way out of miserable situations into a place where I finally felt comfortable in my own skin. We need more stories about us and our culture. You all, we all, deserve everything and more in such a hostile, ableist environment. Our wisdom is incisive and unflinching. I'm honored to be your ancestor and believe disabled oracles like us will light the ways to the future. Don't let the bastards grind you down. I love you all. Rest in power, Alice, and may the force be with you. The rest I submit.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, supervisor Mandelmann. Supervisor Mandelmann.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, I'm asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Mary Kaye Angadio, who died October 13 October 13 at the age of 76 after a brief and courageous battle with pancreatic cancer. Mary Kaye was born in Saginaw, Michigan in 1948. She had a difficult childhood, losing her father at the age of 12 and watching her mother navigate life as a widowed parent with limited education and resources. These early experiences shaped Mary Kay's resilience, independence, and deep compassion for others. She she sought adventure wherever she could. As a young woman, she took a job with Delta Airlines, allowing her to travel to New York City, San Francisco, and Bahamas, often taking day trips just for the joy of seeing the world. In the early nineteen seventies, Mary Kay became a single mom to our former colleague, Joel Engardia. The nineteen seventies was the era of women's liberation and the fight to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Mary Kay and her mother embodied the movement's spirit quietly but powerfully as they raised Joel. Mary Kay supported the family by cleaning homes and office buildings, often bringing along her son and her mother to help help her clean. When Joel was 10 and old enough to stay home alone, Mary Kay returned to school with the goal of using her education to serve vulnerable communities. She attended night classes at the community college one class at a time. And after eleven years earned her bachelor's degree. She went on to work for twenty five years as a licensed social worker for seniors with mental health conditions known for taking her clients on small, but meaningful outings from trips to the zoo, to lunch at the local Taco Bell. Mary Kay was the only member of a large extended Italian Catholic family to convert to Jehovah's Witnesses. Not an easy choice. But she spent fifty years knocking on doors to spread her faith. When she wasn't able to walk door to door anymore, she wrote letters. There were unsent letters in her purse when she died. Yet having a gay son meant her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness required difficult choices. Mary Kay balanced her religious convictions with deep love for her family. She welcomed her son's husband, Lionel, into her life and home, and in her final days, expressed her love and gratitude to both of them. After retiring, Mary Kay moved from Michigan to Vacaville, California to be closer to Joel and Lionel. She loved exploring California on road trips with friends. She also loved Shakespeare, sunsets, mountains, dogs, and cooking for others. Her lasagna, oatmeal scotchy cookies, which I think some of us may have had, and crock pot stews were fan favorites. Mary Kay died peacefully surrounded by love with her son holding her hand. We send our condolences to Joel and his husband, Lionel. Rest in peace, Mary Kay and Guardio. May your memory be a blessing. The rest, I submit.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, mister president. Would you like me at our office to prepare that on behalf of the entire board of supervisors?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Yes. We'll do that without objection.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Supervisor Melgar. Submit. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you. Colleagues, today, I initiated a drafting request with the city attorney's office for a series of legislation that will comprise the San Francisco Clean Streets Act. This legislative package will result in cleaner streets by updating the public works code to improve how our departments deliver services. It will also strengthen accountability measures to make sure our dollars are being used as efficiently as possible. We're bringing forward the series of changes directly informed by talks with merchants, neighbors, public works staff, all of whom are committed to stemming illegal dumping, minimizing confusion for rate payers, and maintaining cleaner streets. Through this legislative framework, we will pursue a number of code changes. And these changes may include creating a tiered enforcement response so that we free up DPW enforcement resources for the most serious issues. This would allow us, for example, to prioritize illegal dumping enforcement over writing up a ticket for a neighbor who forgets to bring their bin in by 6PM. Being smarter about enforcement for repeat offenders who illegally dump trash on our streets by introducing tiered fines and establishing the authority to deny or suspend business registration permits and licenses for unpaid fines. Requiring locked trash cans for repeat violations so that we cut down on scavenging and overturned bins. And in a small but illuminating example, we will clarify the language we use in public works code to be friendlier for everyday users. For example, does anyone know what the word protestable means? And I didn't know this either, but our public works code has rules about this type of waste that we expect everyone to follow. So we'll clarify that what it means in our public works code like every other nearly every other city does so that every day users can know what it actually means. For those wondering, potressible is a waste category that includes organic matter that decays quickly such as food scraps, spoiled food, leaves, grass clippings, animal carcasses, and used diapers. Finally, we will require a comprehensive citywide evaluation of street cleaning routes every ten years. This was a recommendation of the recent BLA in the October 29 performance audit of the management of street cleaning. And this report found that mechanical street sweeping in San Francisco is not evaluated on a regular basis to determine optimized route scheduling, frequency, and labor needs. Excuse me. To determine route scheduling frequency or labor needs. And these routes have not been fundamentally changed since last optimization efforts took place way back in September 2008. And we certainly feel the pain of this in District 3 where most of Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach do not have regular street sweeping, practically the only neighborhoods in this entire city without that service. Neighborhood who neighbors who want that service, which is of course a fair expectation, are constantly being told they cannot have it because of objections that rose to it in the nineteen eighties. So it is my hope that this new requirement of a regular comprehensive citywide evaluation of street cleaning routes will make sure it is not another fifty years before we expand street sweeping again. I'm proud of the work that our office has done, beginning this year to deliver cleaner streets. We've secured new trash cans in Nob Hill and Russian Hill. We restored critical power washing programs in Chinatown, helped businesses adopt locked trash cans, held merchant forums on illegal dumping, and we have many more initiatives on the way. By pursuing a number of the new reforms that I mentioned in our Clean Streets Act, we are doubling down on our work to make sure that San Francisco's streets, sidewalks, and public spaces continue to be cleaner for all. This work is critical every day for our residents and small business owners, and I think it takes on another level of importance in the year ahead as we welcome visitors for the Super Bowl, the World Cup festivities, and many more activities. And the rest, I submit.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, supervisor Sauter. Supervisor Sheryl? Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, I have an in memoriam and a hearing announcement. First, I want to honor and celebrate the life of Reginald Reggie Cummings. A son, a father, a brother, a cousin, a friend, and a true pillar of community. Reggie was born on March 1965 and grew up in Bayview, a place he spoke of with deep pride. He attended Excelsior Elementary, Pelton Middle School, and Lincoln High School, where he formed friendships that would last a lifetime. To know Reggie was to truly love him. He wasn't just welcome into people's lives, He was welcome into their families. He became that dependable presence, that familiar face, that person you knew you could always call. Reggie loved his community, and his community loved him right back. You could see it in the way he carried himself, and the nostalgia that filled his voice when he talked about growing up here, and the joy he found in the things he loved. Old school cars, especially anything blue, with his cherished nineteen sixty seven four forty two Cutlass Oldsmobile leading the way. Professionally, Reggie was a dedicated and he was hardworking. He spent many years at the Moscone Center before beginning his career with Recology in 2007. He worked with pride, always showing up, always giving his best. But above all, it was Reggie's presence that made him unforgettable. He had a smile that could light up any room. He was genuine, warm, and full of life. He had a remarkable gift for making people feel seen, valued, and appreciated. Reggie enjoyed the simple joys that make life rich. Playing dominoes, attending cookouts and car shows, cheering at sporting events, traveling, and going to concerts. He loved good food, good music, good times, and being surrounded by the people who mattered most. Especially little Reggie, who meant the world to him. To so many, Reggie was more than a friend. He was a brother, a mentor, a steady source of strength, a favorite cousin, and a person whose kindness stayed with you long after the conversation was over. Reggie leaves behind a legacy of compassion, generosity, and community. A legacy that will continue to live on through the countless lives he touched. Colleagues, today I'm also introducing a hearing concerning why the mayor's office, the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing, the Department of Emergency Management, MTA, and the SF Port are trying to turn Bayview into a containment zone. I've said this before. District 10 has stepped up time and time again. But the mayor's office and city departments continue to make unilateral decisions that overload our neighborhoods. Shelters, safe sleeping sites, vehicle triage centers, and emergency response facilities are all concentrated in certain areas. While our city departments are refusing to distribute responsibility across the city. The mayor and these named city departments are moving ahead with plans, notifications, and citing decisions without meaningful engagement from residents or local leadership. These after the fact announcements signal that agencies see District 10 as a default dumping ground instead of a community deserving shared governance. We are calling for a comprehensive report from each department. The mayor's office, the department of homelessness and supportive housing, department of emergency management, MTA, and the San Francisco Port. Detailing every shelter bed, navigation center, safe sleeping site, triage center, vehicle site, community cabin program, and related service in San Francisco, and particularly in District 10. The public deserves clear answers of where these services are located, the capacities of each site, and the criteria used to select their locations by each department. City departments must explain their decision must explain their decision making, their communication failures, and what safeguards they will put in place to prevent further unilateral actions. The people of the city, the people of District 10 deserve honesty, respect, and a plan that distributes responsibility citywide rather than treating our community as a containment zone. The rest, I submit.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, supervisor Walton. Supervisor Chan. Submit. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Chan. Submit. Thank you. Mister president, there are no more names on the roster. That concludes the introduction of new business.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Let's go to public comment.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Alright. At this time, the board welcomes your general public comment. Please line up on your right hand side of the chamber. You may speak to the mayoral appearance today or the minutes as presented. Items 46 through 49 on the adoption without committee reference calendar or other general matters not on the published agenda. All other agenda content will have been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where the public comment requirement was satisfied. We are setting the timer for two minutes, and we'll start with mister Ace Washington. Welcome.

[Ace Washington (Public commenter)]: Well, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the board of supervisors, it gives me great honor to stand here for y'all. You may not know it, and you had all these remediations for people. What could you shine the light right there on that there? I'm here to say, do y'all know what happened forty six years ago right here in the city and county of San Francisco? It brings me to tears. And they're having a celebration, not a a remembrance at the African American Cultural Center at 06:00 to talk about the same issue that I'm talk oh, hold up. Oh, can you yeah, Jim. There he is. That devil, Jim Jones. In this city, he was not responsible. They had something to do with it because the mayor at that time appointed him to the public San Francisco Housing Authority Commission in which he took the projects in the Fillmore and took over 900 people to Guyana and forced them to drink that Kool Aid. And I'm I'm appalled that this mayor is not recognizing this. So from here on out next year, we should remember all of those black children, over three hundred died. Do you know how many families that could have been in our community? My name is Ace. Damn it. I stand here crying that those families, some that I know, have gone away. So anyway, I'm here to say I'm Ace on the case, the Fillmore Corridor ambassador. But I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the supervisors. Y'all weren't around. You're not responsible. But I want y'all to remember November 18 when a lot of our black families died over in Guyana over this devil here. My name is Ace. I'm on the case. Thank you for listening. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, Ace Washington, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Edgar Ryan Silva (Public commenter)]: Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Edgar Ryan Silva, and this comment is in regards to mayor Lurie's new street vending laws. As a recent USF graduate and the son of two Filipino loving immigrants, I care deeply about ensuring that immigrant vendors have a fair pathway into the legal economy. I support the city's goal of keeping our streets safe, clean, and free from the resale of stolen retail goods, but as enforcement increases, we must stay equally committed to fairness for immigrant vendors and impacted communities. State sidewalk vending laws emphasize supportive, non punitive approaches, including outreach, education, and pathways to compliance before escalating enforcement. San Francisco should fully embrace that spirit. Many recent immigrants face language barriers, documentation challenges, and financial hardship that make the permitting process far more difficult than it appears. Immigrant vendors contribute to the culture and economy of neighborhoods like the Mission And SoMa District, and they deserve a clear, accessible pathway into the legal market. Enforcement alone won't create opportunity, but enforcement paired with real support will. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Richard S.D. Peterson (Public commenter, licensed fortune teller)]: Board president and members of the board of supervisors, my name is Richard SD Peterson. I am a licensed fortune teller in the city and county of San Francisco. I foresee a city, a city wide battle between the East and the West, kind of a city civil war. In the city and county of San Francisco, there will be civil war. It started east versus west, a downtown scheme to pay for muni. The bay versus the beach. At the center of the division is the thorny issue of parcel taxes. Without input from homeowners, the mayor the mayor's scheme to overtax West Side property owners to shore up failed East Side property speculators. The first the first missile was launched by the mayor. Occasionally, Overs Oceanside Homesteads want a fair deal. They want a place at the table.

[Ryan Shum (Senior Planner, SF Planning Department)]: The

[Richard S.D. Peterson (Public commenter, licensed fortune teller)]: mayor set the policy and formula for calculation of the amount of parcel taxes due. We will compare a portion of the Millennium Tower, say Willie Brown's luxurious apartment with the homestead of a typical city, a typical bungalow on the West Side. And the big question remains, what are the exemptions? And what are

[Mary Anne Spencer Harvey (Honoree; Native elder and volunteer)]: thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Richard S.D. Peterson (Public commenter, licensed fortune teller)]: Apologize. I can't see very well.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Welcome to our next speaker.

[Unidentified public commenter (transgender advocate)]: Hello. I'm here to comment about the Transgender Awareness Month resolution that y'all unanimously sponsored. This is performative. This is hollow and meaningless. I know. I I know that for a fact. Currently, the transgender sanctuary city status of San Francisco is a resolution. It has no teeth. If you really wanted to do something for the trans community, you can turn it into an ordinance so we can actually have real protections and get real help and services from San Francisco. But until that happens, with the rollback in protections and rights and the degraded standard of living that trans people have been experiencing over this past year, hence why nine percent now of the homeless population is transgender, I call San Francisco a trap for trans people. It's not a real sanctuary city. You could also, if you wanted to help, reinstate transgender cultural competency training for San Francisco City And County Employees. It was a little over a year ago that the board voted to settle against the gift program, which was helping financially helping very poor trans people, specifically black and latin trans people. However, the majority of the board voted against black and latin and trans people so that they can never get a basic income from San Francisco again. That's really fucked up. Y'all did real harm. I know this. I know the people you harmed. I think this whole board should be banned from trans events until you show up with something tangible instead of some piece of paper that doesn't do anything for trans people, not just the one person I called out last week.

[Dipali Gill (Sikh Coalition; SF resident)]: You know, what else?

[Unidentified public commenter (transgender advocate)]: You just you're failing us.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Let's hear from our next speaker, please.

[Anand Singh (UNITE HERE Local 2)]: Board of supervisors and mayor offices of San Francisco. I wanna give our Thanksgiving acknowledgment to the folks at the presidential palace, including director Sharonda Aaron, Kiki, Mary Anne, Andre Koy, and Kevin Hunter. I thank you for your time.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Dr. Raveena Rehal (Commission on the Status of Women; District 9 resident)]: Good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public. My name is Ravenna Rohall. I'm a resident of District 9, Bernal Heights, and am also a commissioner on the Commission on the Status for Women. Thank you for taking up the resolution recognizing Sick Awareness and Appreciation Month in the city and county of San Francisco. My husband and I are proud sick Americans, and we chose to raise our two sons, Raza Singh and Sartaj Singh, right here in San Francisco. They wear their long hair, their patkas, and their turbans with pride. And in this city, especially in our community in District 9, they feel celebrated, safe, and seen. That sense of belonging is something we do not take for granted. San Francisco has always been part of sick American history. Over a century ago, immigrant sick immigrants entered The US through this city in Angel Island. They faced discrimination, but they also built strong, resilient communities rooted in equality, service, and resilience. Also, this Bay Area is the birthplace of the gutter movement, one of the most important diaspora led freedom movements of the twentieth century. Today, six San Franciscan six San Franciscans contribute across every sector, healthcare workers, small business owners, teachers, technologists, cab drivers, artists, and public servants. The tradition of Seva or selfless service continues through disaster relief efforts, community food programs, and advocacy for civil rights. But this recognition matters because sick children are not celebrated everywhere. Our friends who live only thirty minutes from here have a son, my son's age, who is being called a terrorist on a regular basis. That is a reality for many sick kids across the country, and it's precisely why your action today is so meaningful. Thank you for naming this Sick Awareness and Appreciation Month. Thank you to San Francisco for doing what it does best, affirming visibility, inclusion, and belonging. Thank you so much today on behalf of my family and especially on behalf of Reza and Sertaj. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, commissioner doctor Rehal.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Welcome. Thank

[Puneet Kaur (Sikh Coalition)]: you. My name is Puneet Kaur here in support of item 47, the resolution to recognize November as sick awareness and appreciation month. I serve as the senior manager of state policy for the Sikh Coalition, the nation's largest Sikh civil rights organization, and am the proud daughter of Punjabi Sikh immigrants myself. San Francisco holds a very special place in our Sikh American history, from the first Punjabi immigrants who landed on Angel Island over one hundred and twenty five years ago to the late doctor Narinder Singh Kapani, a physicist, a sick, and a pioneer of fiber of fiber optics who helped reshape global communication. His brilliance and his contributions to San Francisco and our world is a reminder that the sick contributions in America are vast, historic, and often go untold. For Sikhs, November carries profound meaning as a month of remembrance and righteous struggle. This month marks the three hundred and fiftieth shahidi or martyrdom of our ninth Sikh guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib ji, nicknamed Shrestha Dichadr, or the shield of the world, who gave his life so that people beyond just his own sick followers could freely practice their faith. His sacrifice is one of the great acts of religious freedom in this world. And for many sick families, including survivors and descendants of the nineteen eighty four anti sick genocide, who now call California home, recognition like this matters deeply. They affirm that their trauma and their sacrifice has not been forgotten, that their resilience is honored, and that this city stands with them in acknowledging their lived history. Lastly, this year also marks the thirtieth or thirty years since the martyrdom of sick human rights activist, Baye Justwan Sinhauser, who uncovered the extrajudicial killings and secret cremations of thousands of individuals by the Indian police during the eighties and nineties. In one of his final speeches, just when Sankadar retold the fable of the very first sunset when humanity trembled as darkness swallowed the earth, and how a single lantern challenged

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Alright. Welcome.

[Dipali Gill (Sikh Coalition; SF resident)]: Good afternoon, mister president and members of the board. My name is Dipali Gill, and I'm here on behalf of the Sikh Coalition, the nation's largest Sikh civil rights organization. And I'm also here as a San Francisco resident. I'm here to speak in strong support of item 47, the resolution recognizing sick awareness and appreciation month in the city of San Francisco. The sick community has been part of California's story for more than a century. Sikhs have contributed to the fabric of our neighborhoods and small businesses. Today, Sikhs continue to play an essential role across our state, especially in fields like transportation, where Sikhs truck drivers keep California's economy moving. Here in San Francisco, six are business owners, professionals, workers, students, and neighbors. We are proud to call this city home. Our Gordvaras serve not only as places of worship, but as centers of service, offering free meals, mutual aid, and community support to anyone who needs it, regardless of their background. These values of equality, dignity, and seva, selfless service, align deeply with the values San Francisco strives to uphold. Given the recent bias in incidents and misunderstanding about sick identity nationwide, recognitions like this are more important now than ever. They help ensure that the history, contributions, and lived experiences of sick Americans are seen, understood, and valued. By adopting this resolution, San Francisco sends a powerful message that diversity is a strength and that the city stands with communities who have long contributed to its social and economic fabric. I urge you to pass this resolution and to continue supporting efforts that uplift and protect all of San Francisco's diverse communities. Thank you for your time and your leadership, and a special thank you to sup supervisor Mahmoud for introducing this resolution.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speakers.

[Kelly Dearman (Executive Director, Department of Disability and Aging Services)]: President Mandelmann, supervisors, my name is Kelly Dearman. I'm the executive director of San Francisco's Department of Disability and Aging Services, and I'm here with my colleague, Elijah Larden, who is the director of San Francisco's Office of Disability and Accessibility. So, we could not let the moment pass without saying something about Alice. And supervisor Mahmood, thank you for your very beautiful words. We were heartbroken to learn of the pass passing of disability activist and icon, Alice Wong. She was so generous with her time and donated her expertise to our agency. She was on the advisory council for the San Francisco Disability Cultural Center and spoke at the grand opening event. She also recently donated her time to to be a featured guest at San Francisco's Human Services Agency's National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and that was an event for our employees where she reflected on ableism and creating a more inclusive workplace. And more than a colleague, she was a mentor and a really good friend to me.

[Elijah Larden (Director, Office of Disability and Accessibility)]: Alice was a force for change. Her work embodied the values, as supervisor Mamoud pointed out, of Access is Love, a campaign that she co created with two other incredible disability activists. Access is love continues to inspire us as we work to provide equitable and accessible programs and services to people with disabilities and older adults of all ages and backgrounds throughout our city, as well as visitors to our city. We are overwhelmed by the outpouring of love and disability solidarity that has come out since Alice's passing. I'm gonna say that personally, Alice was an auntie to my children and one of my best friends. And one of her the values that she leaned into deeply was disabled joy. One of the last conversations I had with Alice was around Holiday Plaza. And she was so excited about the transformation of turning Holiday Plaza into an accessible route. A route that could be celebrated by all, but especially the disability community that did not have access to it. I want to acknowledge supervisor Mahmood for your leadership. Thank you so much for elevating Alice's voice. Thank you to all the supervisors for commending Alice, as well as our other, honorariums honoraries, in July. We are so grateful for her work, for her generosity, and her love. And may her legacy live on through our actions.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Thank you, director Dearman. Let's hear from our next speaker, please.

[Dr. Teresa Palmer (Geriatrician; public commenter)]: Hi. My name is doctor Teresa Palmer. I I live in District 5. I'm a geriatrician. I worked for fifteen years at Laguna Honda, and I've been bombing y'all with emails about this issue. The board of supervisors must convene a hearing on how to prevent transfer out of county of San Franciscans who need skilled nursing facility care, either temporary or ongoing. In 2022, the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee worked on, and the full board of supervisors passed, ordinance seventy seven twenty two, which requires acute care hospitals to report to the public health department in San Francisco the number transfer the number of patients transferred to out of county skilled nursing facilities. This was prevented. The current numbers for twenty twenty four was presented to the health commission last July, and they show that at least 1,500 San Franciscans were sent out of county, away from their loved ones, away from their support systems, to often substandard nursing homes. Support systems, to often substandard nursing homes outside of the county. At the same time, Laguna Honda Hospital, despite open beds, is now rejecting or discouraging many qualified applicants who are being discharged from San Francisco hospitals. This is a multifaceted problem. I'm asking, for support to hold a hearing. I I'm not quite sure how it works. It might start with the supervisors at the Public Safety and Neighborhood Service Committee. Supervisor Dorsey also serves on the health service system board, where many city retirees are concerned about this, because they may have the quote unquote wrong insurance to get into Laguna Honda.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, Teresa Palmer. Thank you, doctor Palmer. Welcome to the next speaker.

[Tina Martin (Public commenter)]: Thank you, and good afternoon. I want to my name is Tina Martin, and I actually came here for two purposes, in in addition to honoring Alice Wong. I wanted to speak about the a friend of mine, but she's here to speak for herself. She dealt with a helping a friend, and found out that the system was such that someone who had a home in San Francisco would be sent out of county to a substandard nursing facility. So that was one of the reasons that I came, but she can speak for herself. I just want to say that we have some very brave people trying their best to help others of their age, which is advanced, and they're we're getting these blocks, and we really do need to have a hearing. Please do convene a hearing, and Teresa Palmer is another person I wanted to mention today. I didn't know I was going to have a chance to meet her, and she spoke right before I did. So she's somebody who really knows the system extremely well. She's a champion, for those of us who are getting older and frailer, and care about people who are to fit that description. And she could help you choose people to be on this panel of to hear when you have the hearing, when you convene a hearing, to see how we can manage not to send San Franciscans from San Francisco to substandard nursing facilities outside of San Francisco County. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

[Janet Fowler (Public commenter)]: I'm Janet Fowler. I am the friend. When I arrived at my friend's home on August 27 to take her to an appointment, I found her unable even to stand. I called 911 to have her taken to Davies Hospital, and in spite of the pending holiday, I felt that, she would be safe, because she needed care. She needed acute care. In the meantime, I, learned that Laguna Honda bed had beds available. It was perfect since it has all levels of care, but she was not safe. She'd been transferred to Mission Bernal campus and then promptly dumped at an understaffed home in Oakland. Blue Shield and Medicare Advantage, our city retiree BS insurance, had a very short list of, nursing homes and none in San Francisco. Two weeks after being dumped in the Oakland nursing home, I found my friend close to death, severely, severely dehydrated with a thick tongue covered with white film and full of cracks and bumps. By her bedside, the water that she had craved was in a cup that she couldn't reach reach. I saw agony in her face. I insisted that 911 911 be called to take her to a hospital with acute care. Later, I learned about the irreversible damage that had occurred at the nursing home. In my interaction with the staff there, I learned that they were all good people who just didn't understand the part they had played in what had happened to my friend. We are all like they are. We don't understand the part we are playing that allows this cruelty to continue. The frail and elderly need to be easily reached and kept safe by family or friends, and not and by not fixing this, we, even though we are good people, are playing a part in the tragic and cruel deaths of our elderly and fragile residents. I thank Teresa Palmer

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments.

[Janet Fowler (Public commenter)]: Attention to this issue.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Welcome to our next speaker.

[Mark Solomon (Public commenter)]: Good evening, supervisors. Mark Solomon. My sister-in-law died from crappy nursing home care, and it sucks. Okay. James Baldwin said, not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. To the board, supervisor Chan remarked yesterday that one standard citywide for protecting rent controlled buildings was divisive. I'd like to address that. What's divisive is every year that this board passes a budget that reinforces colonial power relationships, the East Side residential neighborhoods generate more taxes, business, sales, and property than the peripheral neighborhoods, Dollars that are extracted to keep those neighborhoods clean and safe. We are made to take containment, public swallow, undesirable land uses, drug treatment next to our elementary school, for instance. This is for the colonial riffraff. The d nine soup, for decades, has been a technician for directing funding to a handful of politically connected city funding nonprofits, the charity nonprofits that are the colonial administrators. The d nine office for decades has aid and abetted nonprofit racketeering extortion for Plaza 16 in the cell space project, intimidation, collusion, and rigging. These are structural problems, not individuals. The d nine soup was responsive to MEDA today when they asked for $5,000,000 for an administrative palace. Luis Granados makes $3.63 ks at MEDA. Sam Moss makes two seventy five ks at Mission Housing. Elberling pulls in three zero one k. And Shaw makes 300 two seventy ks at Tenderloin Housing. This is of 2023. Miss Friedenbach, for instance, has been an administrator on homelessness. She succeeded in wedging the voters away from progressives because they've messed it up so much. I mean, government considers these colonial administrators as stakeholders, but residents are nowhere to be found in the political calculus. We are deprived of honest government services with this arrangement. To supervisor Chan, better protections on the West and North sides than the than the East Side is what's divisive. We need to end the divisiveness as to get the colonial jackboot off the neck of the Tenderloin, Bayview, SoMa, Mission, and Hunters Point by treating our neighborhoods as first class neighborhoods and making reparations for past harms. Thank you.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mister Warfield, are you coming up to the podium?

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Yes.

[Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association]: Peter Warfield, executive director, Library Users Association, PO Box 170544, San Francisco, California 94117 Dash 0544. San Francisco Public Library is, I think, in some serious trouble with respect to its service to the public. It had for decades a slow a mission statement. The San Francisco Public Library is dedicated to free and equal access to information, knowledge, independent learning, and the joys of reading for its diverse community. That has been replaced relatively recently with, quote, SFPL connects our diverse communities to learning opportunities and each other. Maybe you could explain what that means, but it certainly leaves out free and equal. More and more, the library has been putting barriers to access for the whole range of vulnerable populations disproportionately likely disproportionately affecting minorities, older people, non native English speakers, poorer people, and the disabled, more and more virtual meetings instead of in person, more and more electronic media. And the library does not, for everything that they have, provide the means like a Kindle or a computer that can play a DVD or a CD, which is access that's needed to deal with the electronic materials. And they used to have VCR players. They used to have record players and so on. More and more of the library, unfortunately, is unconditionally touting tech, and now especially AI. There's a whole program of one city, one book with AI, almost nothing with regard to specifics about the terrible downsides affecting making serious problems, social impact, serious draws of electricity, water, and land.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you for your comments. Do we have any other individuals who would like to provide public comment, mister president?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Public comment is now closed, and we will go to our first assignment without committee reference agenda, I believe.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items 46 through 49 were introduced for adoption, but without committee reference. Yep. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today. Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Melgar? 49. Supervisor Mahmoud? You sir, 47, please. 47. Alright. So on the remaining balance of the items, madam clerk, that is 46 and 48. Can you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On items forty six and forty eight, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. Supervisor, Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor, Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor, Mandelmann?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor, Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor, Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor, Cheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chen, aye. And supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. There are 10 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam clerk, can you please call item 47?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 47. This is a resolution to recognize the month of November 2025 as sick awareness and appreciation month in the city and county of San Francisco.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Mahmoud.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Colleagues, in 1899, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the arrival of four sick men, the first reported South Asian pioneers to enter California through San Francisco, marking the beginning of a vibrant and resilient Sikh American community here on the West Coast. Sikh pioneers worked in lumber mills, and on railroad construction before becoming some of California's most innovative and productive farmers, helping to transform the state's Central Valley into one of the world's most abundant agricultural regions. As the fifth largest religion in the world, Sikhism has nearly 30,000,000 followers, including approximately 375,000 in California alone. Despite this history, legislation to authorize Sikhs and other South Asian immigrants to naturalize as United States citizens wasn't enacted until 1946, underscoring the barriers faced by early sick Americans who nonetheless persevered and contributed meaningfully to their adopted homeland. Importantly, the Guther, or Revolution, party found its base in San Francisco in 1913, acting as a home to progressive thought and a crossroads of global ideas, activism, and dissent, where freedom of speech and political expression allowed British Indian revolutionaries to organize openly for independence and equality. From its base in San Francisco, the Ghadr party published Ghadr, the first Punjabi language newspaper in The United States, whose words reach com communities across Asia, Africa, and The Pacific, advancing a vision of revolution and freedom for all that connected movements for justice around the world. The sick American community continues to enrich San Francisco through contributions in business, education, technology, medicine, and public service, reflecting the city's commitment to diversity, equity, and shared progress. Six have remained among the most frequently targeted faith groups, underscoring the need for education and solidarity to foster understanding and inclusion. And speaking from personal experience, I wanted to comment on some of the public comment that was raised about the continued attacks and discrimination of the sick community, especially as I saw personally after 09:11. Unfortunately, a lot of the Sikh community was targeted because, a lot of the people who were uneducated thought that they were Muslim. And as a Muslim American, seeing another member of the community, be targeted, due to discrimination and prejudice is, something I have remembered since I was a teenager. And, we have to remember in that context that when one group is targeted, often many groups are targeted at the same time. So, colleagues, item 47 recognizes the month of November 2025 as sick awareness and appreciation month, representing a commitment to ensuring that all people of faith, including the sick community, can practice their religion freely and fearlessly, and stands united against all forms of hate, discrimination, and intolerance while upholding the city's enduring values of equity, dignity, and belonging for all residents.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Mahmoud. I think we can take that item. Same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. And then madam clerk, can you call item 49?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 49. This is a resolution to declare 11/17/2025 as World Prematurity Awareness Day in the city and county of San Francisco and to urge interagency efforts to close gaps in birth disparities.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you, mister president and colleagues. I wanna thank supervisor Walton, Sauter, Fielder, and Chen for their cosponsorship declaring 11/17/2025 as World Prematurity Awareness Day in San Francisco. This resolution represents an international health campaign that urges for increasing investments to prevent preterm births and support birth givers and babies with accessible life saving health care. Preterm birth occurs before thirty seven completed weeks of pregnancy, and these babies are more susceptible to difficult breathing, long term disabilities, and chronic illnesses. San Francisco has one of the worst birth disparities in California, with one in every twelve babies born preterm with black Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and Latine pregnant people experiencing disproportionately higher term rates of preterm birth than their white counterparts. No birth giver, regardless of race or income, should face preventable life threatening risks during childbirth. When medical professionals possess the knowledge and the resources to address complications that can result in fatalities for the parent and the child. This resolution seeks immediate action and increased investments in stronger, more resilient health systems to save lives, improve health, and promote the rights and opportunities for women and children. This week, I encourage all San Franciscans to take a moment to honor our health care workers, midwives, birth doulas, and the birth givers whose strength and resilience bring new life to our community. Thank you all for your support.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Melgar. I think we can take that item, same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: None to report, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Then can you read the in memoriams?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on behalf of supervisor Walton, for the late mister Reginald Cummings, on behalf of supervisor Mahmoud, for the late miss Alice Wong, on behalf of president Mandelmann, to be prepared on behalf of the full board of supervisors for miss Mary Kaye Ingardio.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think that brings us to the end of our agenda. Madam Clerk, is there any further business before us today?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: That concludes our business for today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, and we are adjourned.