San Francisco Government SmartTranscripts:

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Good afternoon, and welcome to the 12/02/2025 regular meeting of the San Francisco board of supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. Supervisor Chan. Present. Chan, present supervisor Chen. Chen, present supervisor Dorsey. Present. Dorsey, present supervisor Fielder. Fielder present, supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood present, supervisor Mandelmann.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann present, supervisor Melgar. Present. Melgar present, supervisor Sauter. Present. Sauter present, supervisor Cheryl. Present. Cheryl, present. Supervisor, Walton. Present. Walton, present. Supervisor Wong. Present. Wong, present. Mister president, all members are present.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, madam clerk, and welcome, supervisor Wong. 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 affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance?

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: I pledge allegiance to the flag

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: of The United States Of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, On behalf of the board, I wanna acknowledge the staff at SFgovTV and today particularly, Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes, mister president. First, the board received a communication from the honorable mayor Daniel Lurie, dated 12/01/2025, announcing his appointment of Alan Wong to fill the vacancy in District 4. Supervisor Wong has taken the oath of office, is covered under the bonding credentials, and is now a member of the board of supervisors. Welcome, supervisor Wong. The board of supervisors welcomes your attendance here in person at the board's Legislative Chamber Chamber Room 2 52nd Floor Of City Hall. When you can't be here, the proceedings are airing live on SFgov TV's channel 26 or live streaming at www.sfgov.tv.org. Submit public comment in writing either by sending an email to bos@sfgov.org or via US Postal Service to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Number 1, Doctor Carlton B Goodlip Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102. To make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disabilities Act or to request language assistance. Please contact the clerk clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling (415) 554-5184. That concludes my communication.

[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)]: The The approval of, the 10/28/2025 regular board meeting minutes and the October 20 special meeting minutes at the land use and transportation committee meeting, which constituted a quorum of the board of supervisors.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the minutes, supervisor Filther Filder, I. Supervisor of Mahmood Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelmann. I. Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar. Hi. Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter. Hi. Sauter, I. Supervisor Sheryl. Hi. Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton,

[Unidentified voting member(s) (short vote responses)]: aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. Madam clerk, let's go to our consent agenda, items one through 18. Items

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: one through 18 are on 18 are on consent. These items are considered routine. If a member objects, any item may be removed and considered separately.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On items one through 18, supervisor Fielder. Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmoud Mahmoud, I. Supervisor Mandelmann.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar. Melgar, I. Supervisor Sauter. Aye. Sauter, I. Supervisor Sheryl. Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I. There are 11 eyes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, these ordinances are passed on first reading and finally passed, and the resolutions are adopted. Madam clerk, let's go to our regular agenda, new business. Please call item number 19.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 19 is an ordinance to appropriate approximately 4,500,000.0 of state cost reimbursement revenue to the Department of Elections to support costs associated with the statewide November two thousand and twenty five special election. This ordinance requires a two thirds approval vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to charter section 9.113 c.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: 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 20.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 20 is a resolution to approve amendment number one to the agreement between the city, the Department of Public Health, and Catholic Charities to provide HIV health services rental subsidy services to extend the term by five years from 06/30/2026 for a total term of 07/01/2021 through 06/30/2031 and to increase the amount by approximately 7,300,000.0 for a total amount not, for a total amount of approximately 13,400,000.0.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Again, we can do this one, same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 21.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 21 is a resolution to approve the retired the revised terms and conditions and authorize the general manager of the SFPUC and or city's director of property to execute a purchase and sale agreement and easement deeds with Sonoag Glen Unified School District for the acquisition of an approximately 4,000 square foot easement for an underground water pipeline and associate associated appurtenances, and approximately 35,000 square foot temporary construction easement across a portion of Alameda County, known as 11601 Main Street, for 35,000 plus an administrative fee of 5,000, and up to 10,000 in closing costs for a total amount of 50,000.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 22.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 22 is a resolution to retroactively authorize the fire department to accept and expend approximately $637,000 grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the California Office of Emergency Services for the fire department's new training facility for the performance period of 08/01/2024 through 04/20/2027 and waiving indirect costs.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 23.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 23 is an ordinance to authorize settlement of the lawsuit filed by Tommy O. Johnson by and through his attorney in fact, Reverend Doris White and John Doe, by and through his conservator, Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the city for approximately 5,800,000.0. The lawsuit involves claims of elder dependent adult abuse, invasion of privacy, negligence, and violation of patients' rights brought by over 700 former and current residents of Laguna Honda Hospital.

[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 number 24 is a resolution to authorize a six month waiver of the city's behested payments ordinance for the mayor, members of the mayor's office, and the executive director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to solicit donations from non profits, private organizations, grant makers, foundations, and other persons and entities for the purpose of supporting the continued economic revitalization of San Francisco.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, to be clear, this is an extension of a six month waiver. At the time when this item was heard in the GAO committee, OEWD and the mayor's office were unable to provide adequate information about who was solicited under this waiver and a statement as to why they might be interested parties. In contrast, HSH was able to deliver these answers about their behest of payments waiver quite easily in committee, despite the fact that some of this information was readily available via the mayor's publicly accessible form eight zero three filings. Conway Family Foundation, Ligore Susan, Ripple Labs, Shorenstein Realty LLC are just a handful of those that were solicited. In an effort of good faith, I sent these questions to the mayor's office an entire week in advance. I asked the mayor's office to send someone to committee who can speak to these questions. Instead, they sent someone from OAWD who, with all due respect and to no fault of her own, had no answers. The mayor's office sent a memo as to us today that contains zero answers to my questions of how the behested parties might be interested parties. And yet, here we are about to approve this waiver without any answers to my questions. As chair of the government audit and oversight committee, I'm committed to ensuring that city officials adhere to our Bahasa payment ordinance to prevent any potential indications of impropriety. These waivers state that the waiver serves to further the public interest and do not create an appearance of impropriety. We have a duty on the board and a responsibility to the residents of San Francisco to ensure that we actually stand behind that statement. Given the lack of information provided by the mayor's office, I continue to have real concerns about the city being able to conduct meaningful oversight on potential conflicts of interest for this specific waiver. For that reason, I'll be voting against this item. Thank you.

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

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Well, over the past year, we've made major strides towards revitalizing downtown. Downtown is, you know, the heart of the tax revenue that we generate in this city. It is absolutely critical, not only, for the success of businesses and workers here, but also, for the funds that that help get more police officers for every neighborhood, more firefighters for every neighborhood, more street cleaning for every neighborhood. We need to be using every tool at our disposal, to help this economic, revitalization and recovery. And so, I'm excited to cosponsor this item to keep expanding the number of options we have available, the levers we have to pull on to drive the economic revitalization. San Francisco, is going to come back. We are coming back. But it's going to take all of us working together. It's going to take every tool in our toolbox. And, I'm I'm very excited to push this forward and and to have, the mayor introducing this. You know, when we look at tourism, hotel rooms, from conventions are up more than 60%, but they're still down from pre pandemic levels. Air tourism up seven and a half percent from last year, but still down from pre pandemic levels. This is gonna take a lot of work. I think this is one tool. This is not everything. But I'm excited to be a cosponsor on this. And and I hope, we can all have your, I can have your support on this measure today.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. And I wanna thank, chair, our GAO, chair, Felder, for her work and her questioning on this. I think, absolutely, it's not just for this BEHES waiver, but all BEHES waiver, BEHES payment waiver should really come under scrutiny. And it's not just for the mayor, but all city departments. We have learned our lessons from previous years that, you know, if we don't ring in that pay to play culture, it's problematic for good government. And so I just wanna express my thanks to, Chair Felder for her work and questioning. I also being in the space, I have approved, the BEHES waiver, BEHES payment waiver, particularly, from Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. I know it's our next agenda item, and it's not called at this moment. But I wanna do speak on waiver across in general that, you know, I do look forward to seeing more information, both the solicited parties, as well as the dollar amount, and really what the results, and then, come to it, and the reasoning being why we need to continue to renew these, because payment waiver. I will be in supportive of this one as well as the next one, for only the reason being is that I think that the memo that while we receive, I I would consider late, but still, transparent information, allow us to understand who are the potential interested parties. But I I am not in commitment that I will continue to support next round of the behest, payment waivers. And the reason being is, I think at some point, we need to go back our ethics commission, to understand the best part is when it comes to behest payment waiver. And, I would also like to get a bit more understanding from both the ethics commission, as well as potentially our controller, or whoever that we can actually get, or maybe our budget and legislative analyst, to start evaluating best practice for city governments to identify resources, revenues, and how that, impact of good government. I think those things, I would like to learn more about and understand, and having guidance and data tell us how much money that we actually bring in, who is it that we're getting it from, and what kind of relationship, both not just the mayor, but also all across, because we're granting these, behest payment waivers beyond the mayor and and the and the administration and city attorney, district attorney, assessor recorder. We we have granted a whole list of electeds, across the city for them to actually engage in this practice. So while today I'm in supportive, I want definitely answers, and I, again, want to thank, Chair, Chair Fielder for your work, and I look forward to seeing more of those, dialogue happening at our government audit oversights committee. Thank you.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Supervisor Sautner?

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, President Mandelmann. I will be in support of this today, as I was at our GAO committee. I don't think this needs to be a a choice between downtown and our neighborhoods, and I think they depend on one another. And in fact, we have countless waivers that speak to the work we're doing in different communities and in different neighborhoods. And I certainly hear supervisor Fielder's frustration with some of the questions that were unanswered. And I, you know, I think that those particular questions and that oversight should be put into future behest waivers. If we're looking for that oversight, let's put that in the in the legislation itself, so that we have that, as a, you know, kind of a as a blanket statement of what you were looking for in terms of the oversight. But for this today, I'll be supporting this. I think it contributes to the work that we're doing, for all of San Francisco, particularly for downtown.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 24, supervisor Fielder. Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmood Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann?

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? No. Melgar, no. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are eight ayes and three nos with supervisors Fielder, Melgar, and Walton voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 25.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 25 is a resolution to authorize the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing's executive director, chief deputies, deputy directors, and program directors to list to solicit donations from various private entities and organizations to support the expansion of temporary shelter and other homeless services to support people experiencing homelessness, notwithstanding the behested payment ordinance.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, as we all know, the mayor has a horrible track record with his king making policies to oversaturate District 10 and other districts with all issues around homelessness. So there's no way I would support him soliciting resources to continue to steamroll my district. So I definitely will not be supporting this king making decision.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor supervisor chair fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, president Mandelmann. In contrast to the previous waiver that we just approved, HSSAGE was able to very easily answer my questions about the parties solicited under this waiver, and how they might be potentially interested. And I had no concerns about them. So I will be supporting.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 25, supervisor Felder Fielder, I. Supervisor, Mahmood. Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelmann.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, I. Supervisor Melgar Melgar, I. Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, I. Supervisor Sheryl. Aye. Cheryl, I supervisor, Walton. No. Walton, no. Supervisor, Wong. Wong, I supervisor, Chan. Aye. Chan, I supervisor, Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor Walton voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item 26.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 26 is a resolution to approve an agreement with nonprofit owners association for the administration and management of the property based business improvement district known as the Dogpatch in Northwest Potrero Cable Green benefit district for a period commencing 01/01/2026 through January through 12/31/2040.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 26, 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 Sheryl. Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor, Dorsey? Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 27 is an ordinance to amend the police code to increase the fine for misdemeanor convictions for sideshow offenses from a maximum of $500 to a maximum of a thousand dollars.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Madeline. And I am going to support this item. I think we have to do everything we can to keep our communities safe. And these sideshows are very dangerous, but I just want to caution the fact that I am seeing a lot of policies that are providing attacks on people of color, and providing attacks on the most vulnerable. This is most something, definitely something that would disproportionately affect people of color. But safety, of course, comes first. But we have to be careful about the policies that we put in place and think about the unintended consequences. So I have to make sure that I state that on record.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I think though we can take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 28.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 28 is an ordinance to amend the Public Works Code to authorize the enforcement of vending permit requirements through warnings, infractions, misdemeanors, and fines up to a thousand dollars for vending certain types of merchandise that are common targets of retail theft on city property without a permit and amending the port code to conform those amendments.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thanks, president Mandelmann. I'd like to express my appreciation for the work undertaken on this legislation in collaboration with the Mission Street Vendors Association. The association has been advocating for this measure since its inception. Street vendors are a vital component of the Mission's small business community and vibrancy, and so I'm casting my vote today in support of them.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: 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 29.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 29 is a resolution to urge the San Francisco Police Department to develop and implement a comprehensive of enforcement and intervention plan to address drug use or suspected drug activity, especially within 250 feet of parks, playgrounds, schools, and youth centers.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: I just wanted to thank supervisor Cheryl and and Mahmoud for taking the amendments to this resolution, and for incorporating a response focused on law enforcement, as well as a whole of government approach that includes Department of Emergency Management, Department of Public Health, to refer and connect individuals to services like detox, crisis stabilization, and treatment. And for that reason, I'll be voting yes today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I think we can take that item, same house, same call, without objection. The resolution is adopted. Madam clerk, please call item 30.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 30 is a resolution to determine that the issuance of a type 69 special on sale beer and wine theater liquor license to the Roxy Theater doing to do business as Roxy Theater, located at 3117 16th Street, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and request that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control impose conditions on the issuance of the license.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call items 31 through 33 together.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item 31 is a motion to appoint Jeffrey Jonathan Morris and Nicholas Goldman to the assessment appeals board number one, terms ending 09/04/2028. Item number through 32 is a motion to reappoint John Lee Mervyn Conlin and Susan Elizabeth Miller to the assessment appeals board number two, terms ending 09/04/2028. And item 20 33 is a motion to appoint Franco Cirelli, James Reynolds, and Christine Nelson to the assessment appeals board number three, terms ending 09/04/2028.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We can take these items, same house, same call, without objection. The motions are approved. Now, madam clerk, I am concerned concerned that if we go to committee reports at 02:27, we will significantly delay our 02:30 special orders. Any reason we can't go to roll call right now and then come back? Anybody have any that's an okay thing to do? Great. Let's go to roll call.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: First up on roll call today is supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, today, I'm thrilled to introduce a resolution affirming San Francisco's commitment to advancing equitable building decarbonization efforts that center environmental justice. This resolution further urges the implementation of the San Francisco Climate Action Plan to ensure that San Francisco remains a clean city that protects its most at risk marginalized communities from the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that in passing this resolution, we are expressing a commitment to supporting city and community partnerships with environmental justice organizations to scale equitable building decarbonization projects in neighborhoods throughout San Francisco, and in particular, calling out defined zones on the environmental justice community map, who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of fossil fuel emissions. The rest, I submit.

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

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: I have an in memoriam today, colleagues. I ask that we adjourn adjourn our meeting in memory of Wafana Sopp, who passed away in Stockton, California on November 5. Wafana was born in Battambang, Cambodia on 01/25/1970, the youngest of eight siblings. Following the rise of the Khmer Rouge and this beginning of the Cambodian genocide, she and her family fled to a refugee camp in Thailand. They later migrated to The Philippines before finding refuge in San Francisco. Wathana attended elementary school here before her family found a permanent home in Stockton. Education was a priority for her family. Her father often told his children and later grandchildren that education is the one thing in this world that cannot be taken from you. Wathana took this saying to heart and pursued a career as an educator. She earned her associate's degree in education before becoming a teacher's assistant at Manilo Silva elementary school. For the next two decades, she provided one on one support to students with special needs. In her free time, she read books on how to care for students with disabilities and even learned Spanish. She spent extra time studying her students' science and history materials to better help them master their studies. Outside of work, she loved to travel. She'd recently visited several states, including Alaska and New York before taking her family across the border to Canada. She loved to hike and took any opportunity to walk whenever and wherever she could. She loved to cook. No family party was complete without one of her signature Cambodian desserts served in Pyrex bakeware. Whether she brought fried bananas, coconut pandan pudding, or whatever experimental dish that she might make for the first time using whatever was available at the Cambodian market. She made sure that everyone everyone around her was well fed. Wathana suffered a major heart attack and was hospitalized the week before she died. She was so optimistic about her recovery that she asked her daughter to help her plan a trip to Switzerland for the coming year. Sadly, she suffered another heart attack a week later, and this one was fatal. She's survived by her husband, Cao, daughter, Mylia's son, Qing Lung, her sisters, and dozens of nieces and nephews, including Calvin Ho, from my office. Rest in peace and power, Wathan Asap. May your memory be a blessing, and the rest I submit.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you, miss.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We should probably go to our 02:30 special order.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Our two thirty two thirty PM special order is the recognition of commendations.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And we will begin with district eleven supervisor Chen.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, broad president. Doctor Zhang, may I ask you to the go to the podium? Yay. Colleen, it's my great honor to commend doctor Jen Zhang for over three decades of services and leadership at Chinese Hospital. Doctor Zhang first joined Chinese Hospital in 1991 as a UCSF international student. In 2017, she was appointed chief executive officer during a critical period and time of transition for the hospital. Under her leadership, she has built a hospital centered around community based care. During the pandemic, she formed a multilingual, community centric public health response that helped San Francisco's Chinatown maintain one of the lowest infection and mortality rate despite being one of the most densely populated area in the nation. This operational success was widely praised by public health authorities and national media. Doctor. Jones' impact is immeasurable. Her awards is accumulated, are too many to list here. She is a member of the committee of 100. And in 2023, she was also featured on ForB's 50 over 50 innovation list. Just to name a few, that list is so long. She leaves behind a strong foundation built on compassion, excellence, and culturally integrity. Patient care has centered around language access and culturally competent services, rebuilding public trust in health care. Doctor John, your decades of commitment, care, leadership, incredible work, and invaluable knowledge will no doubt be missed by your colleagues and our community. And I wish you all the best in your next journey. And I know before you speak, we have a list of my colleagues who also want to say a few words.

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: Thank you.

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

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Doctor. Jeong, it's so good to have you in these chambers. And you deserve all this recognition and much more. The work that you've done for San Francisco and for Chinatown is immeasurable. And as my colleague shared, you know, in particular, you stepped up big during the pandemic, and you kept that community and this entire city safe. Thank you for that. I know that Chinese hospital means so much to so many. People speak of pride when they speak of working there or being doesn't happen by accident. It takes fostering year after year to build a legacy that you have built and that you are building with your team and your staff and your board. Please don't go far. San Francisco needs you, and, I just wanna appreciate all of your work, and thank you for all of your contributions.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, President Mendelmann. And I just wanna lend my congratulations as well. Your work to ensure that the Chinese hospital remains a culturally appropriate place for healing, and also a top notch medical facility at the same time. It's just something that I admire and proves that you can lead with class and integrity and with purpose for a and for an entire community and do it in a manner that also benefits the entire city. So thank you so much for your work.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Doctor, I just wanna say congratulations. And I I am grateful for the opportunity to have done work, not just as a member of the board of supervisors, but going back. It's hard to believe it's almost twenty years, when I was working in the city attorney's office when there was a medical group that was using its market position in a way that, then city attorney Dennis Herrera felt was unlawful. I went shoulder to shoulder with Chinese hospital, and I was really proud to be a part of the team on that case. And it was an honor to work with that institution then. And it's just great to see you honored today.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Thank you.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, President Mendelmann. Doctor. Zhang, I think you brought some really great guests of honor here, including, I want to acknowledge our mayor, Mr. Willie Brown, that is in the chamber. My assumption is because of you, that we all gather here to honor you, and thank you for your accomplishments for our community. And I'm just so grateful. You've been working in our community long before you became a leader at Chinese hospital. Because of your leadership, I really firmly believe that Chinatown was at its lowest of infection rates for during COVID. We have masks. We were able to introduce vaccination, in the most immediate sense for all those that especially those living in SRO. Thanks to you and your leadership at the Chinese hospital, you save lives. And that, we are grateful. I do firmly believe that it's not just now, that, this is the yet the best has yet to come for you. And for us, because of you. So thank you so much, doctor Zhang, for all the work that you have done. I look forward to more of what you will accomplish. Thank you.

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

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

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Congratulations, doctor Zhang. I have an interesting story of how I first met doctor Zhang. So I was the union rep for SEIU employees at Chinese Hospital for four years. So I would be on the other side pushing grievances, fighting for workers, and working on negotiating different workers' rights issues. And so doctor Zhang always tells me whenever I bump into, hey, the new union rep is so mean. You're always the nicest one.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: He really was. Yeah.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: So and since then, I've known you in a different capacity in the community and just recognizing that Chinese hospitals, I think, one of the prides of of our community. My my dad goes to who's well, uses CCHP, and and it's something that, as a kid, I went to the Noriega Clinic for CCHP for for my for my medical support. So Chinese hospital is really one of the prides of the Chinese community, and I'm just so glad that we're able to to honor you. I I think that you've also been very visible in the the community, especially Chinese community, and you've really put Chinese hospital out there so that you're out and visible, and people see the work of Chinese hospital. So thank you.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: you. And we have indeed been joined by Mayor Brown, who I believe may have some things to say about doctor Zhang.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Mayor Brown, you are

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

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you.

[Willie L. Brown, Jr., Former Mayor of San Francisco]: Mister president and the board members of our legislative body here in San Francisco, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to say something about this extraordinary person whom you are being asked to honor. In America, independent hospitals were at one time the cornerstone of the people's delivery system. Over the years, those hospitals have fared one way or another, and sometimes to the detriment of the people they previously served. The Chinese hospital has been dramatically different. Many of us who have held public office, a hold in public office, or associated one one fashion or another, have always had nothing except the highest integrity, respect for the Chinese hospital. And for more than thirty years, this woman has been the symbol of that respect in that effort. And your acknowledging, her contributions speaks volumes for the concept of independent hospitals. You may or may not know, but over many months during the course of her thirty one years, she has been called upon by hospitals being challenged similar to the Chinese hospital in San Francisco. And she has been as responsive as possibly to be. And there have been acknowledgments of that from hospital organizations and individuals all over the country. I happened to go to the Chinese hospital to get help whenever I needed, especially during the pandemic. And there clearly was a stationary foundation for the health delivery system here in San Francisco in that time period, such that our own hospital systems, particularly the University of California's medical center, developed and executed a great respect and the utilization of the Chinese hospital all under this woman's leadership. Her leaving is a great loss to us in San Francisco. To all these years, she has, at every corner of the health delivery system, been a cornerstone doing what she needed to do to make the health delivery system in our city, but particularly through the Chinese hospitals' efforts, a contributor. And so I really urge you in every way to approve of this resolution and to do so with the greatest degree of respect for a cornerstone of our health delivery system. And I'm really sorry we're losing her because now I can't call if I'm in Los Angeles and say, is there anybody there that when I get off the airplane coming into San Francisco, I can stop by? I don't feel well. I can't do that if she leaves. And so I really am personally horrified that I'm gonna call and get turned down for assistance, and I suspect that there are a ton of people. There's nothing I love more, frankly, than being at some event in San Francisco, and the question is asked, how many of you know about the Chinese hospital? And then the question is, how many of you were born at the Chinese hospital? Being from Texas, I was not born at the Chinese hospital, obviously, but I occasionally will lie and raise my hand because I want everybody to know how much I think of what this lady has done since 1991 or thereabouts to make the Chinese hospital what it is now and what it will be in the future. And I wanna personally congratulate her. And I'm sorry I'm not the mayor because I'd like to be doing it in my capacity as the mayor, but I'm doing it in my capacity as a friend of the Chinese hospital and admirer of this woman who has so led the Chinese hospital, and I do so on behalf a of a collection of other elected officials, in particular, other mayors who have had the great pleasure and the great honor of interacting with her and her leadership as she advocated for the quest for the resources that will make that hospital continuously successful. And so please unanimously pass this resolution. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, mister mayor. I would note we have also been joined by our director of the Department of Public Health, Daniel Tsai. Hello hello, Director Tsai. Thank you for coming by. And with that, would you like and would you like to say a few words? You are welcome to say a few words.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: I'll go

[Daniel Tsai, Director, San Francisco Department of Public Health]: back it out for this hour.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you so much. Sir. Thank you.

[Daniel Tsai, Director, San Francisco Department of Public Health]: I just wanna say congratulations, to, to doctor Zheng and, Chinese hospital. Is it a hundred seventy six? Hundred and

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: twenty six.

[Daniel Tsai, Director, San Francisco Department of Public Health]: Hundred I always add fifty because I'm very optimistic. Over. A hundred twenty six years of being here serving the community. Many people that we work with were born in Chinese hospital. And what it means to the community is, hard to put words into. So thank you, Mayor Brown, for for noting that. And, we have deep pride at the department for being able to work with Jen and the entire team at Chinese Hospital and for everything they've done in our delivery system and how core, Chinese Hospital is. So we are here to continue standing with Chinese Hospital in partnership. And, I wanna congratulate doctor Zhang, and I know she won't go far, as as Michael and others, take the helm. So congratulations, and thank you to the board for recognizing her. I'm sorry I don't have my jacket on, but

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you so much. You.

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, director Tsai. Doctor Jang, almost anything that could be said about you has been said about you, but I wanna echo my colleagues' appreciation for you and congratulate you. And thank you to supervisor Chen for offering this commendation. And with that, the floor is yours. And when you're done, we're gonna invite you into the well to get a photograph with all of us.

[Dr. Jian Zhang, CEO, Chinese Hospital]: Thank you. President Mendelmann, supervisors, mayor Brown, thank you so much for coming. And Dan, and he's actually in, a meeting. He just got out of the meeting for this. I'm really touched. And community leaders, colleagues, family, and friends, thank you for this extraordinary honor. Standing here today, I feel deeply humbled because this recognition is not about one person. It is about a community, a hospital, and a city that have shaped the work of my entire life. I first stepped into Chinese hospital as an international student from UCSF during my clinical rotation. Mary Brown is right, that's 1991. So if you count the two years as a student, it's actually thirty four years instead of thirty two. I remember seeing women with no insurance who could not afford a mammogram at that time. Many were frightened. Many waited too long and too late. Many did not know how to navigate a health care system that did not speak their language. So that experience changed me. I began teaching breast self exam classes. So, yeah, I started I have done many other things to become before I became the CEO. And, writing grants so low income women could get their, free screenings. I didn't stop writing grants until I brought the I don't know, some of you probably remember the breast cancer early detection program, which it, which is a state program, and later known as Every Woman Counts, and we still have the program, in, at the clinics, to ensure that every woman, regardless of income, immigration status, or language, had access to life saving care. That was the first lesson I learned from Chinatown. When you see a need, you step forward. When you see fear, you bring hope. Over the decades, I have served alongside generations of dedicated nurses, physicians, board members, many of our partners, and then our, our staff. We lived through moments that tested every part of us. Financial instability, political turbulence, and the COVID pandemic that's threatened our community. Yet through it all, Chinese hospital remained what it has been for one hundred and twenty six years, a place of safety, dignity, and unconditional care. We stood firm, we took care of a community, and we never closed our doors. When I was appointed CEO in 2017, the hospital was at a critical turning point. Many believed that the last independent community hospital in the entire San Francisco Bay Area could not survive due to the breakup between the health plan and the medical group, but they underestimated something important, the strength of this community and the resilience of this hospital. Today, Chinese hospital has been recognized by Newsweek three years in a row as the as one of the best in state hospitals known for quality, safety, and culturally responsive care, but we cannot stay stay still. Health care is changing, and Chinese hospital must continue to adapt, to innovate, and to evolve so that it can keep serving the most vulnerable among us. This honor today reminds us that our work is not done. Our mission continues. The story of Chinese hospital is inseparable from the story of San Francisco itself, a city built by immigrants, a city that welcomes the vulnerable, a city that believes in community health is a shared responsibility. As the city, I guess, mayor may like, mayor Brown say, by supervisor Chan, declares December 2 as the doctor Gen Zeng Day, I wanna say clearly, no individual succeeds alone. I share this honor with our board of trustees and our physicians, our nurses, our staff, and whose dedications is unmatched. Our community partners and elected officials, you know that all of you, I have probably have gone to you, all of you, right, for help. And, and our community who place their trust in us every day. Most importantly, I share it with every immigrant who wonders if they belong, and every young woman who dreams of leading, but fears she might not be seen. I hope this recognition tells them, yes, you belong. Yes, you your work matters, and yes, leadership can look like you, every single one of you. As I prepare for the next chapter of my life, I carry forward the belief that leadership is not about holding the position. It is about lighting the path for others. I look forward to continuing to serve the city in new ways, supporting the next generation leaders who will carry this mission forward. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for this honor, for your partnership, for believing in Chinese hospital, a small hospital with a big mission, still standing, still serving, and still essential after a hundred and twenty six years. Thank you very much.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, it is my profound honor to recognize Mark Mazza today. Mark, could you approach the lectern? Mark is a universally respected force within San Francisco's Department of Emergency Management and someone whose engagement is frequently sought after. Usually to solve neighborhood problems others might find intractable. But from my perspective as a policymaker, I've come to recognize, too, the extent to which he is sought after for his highly well informed perspective, his heart, and his willingness to offer his unvarnished viewpoint on what we, as a city, should be doing to better solve our and serve our most vulnerable. As neighborhood street team manager, Mark does not simply coordinate logistics. He walks the neighborhood, sometimes 50 miles a week, meeting people where they are, earning a level of trust few others can, often seeing me on my bike share rides around the district and in neighboring areas. Mark's role is emblematic of DEM's mission to anchor emergency management, not just to buildings and plans, but in lived experience and in human relationships. His dedication is rooted in what I consider to be a uniquely San Franciscan civic value that balances pragmatism with compassion. He understands that change on the street doesn't come overnight, but it does come person by person and often one step at a time. After the Tenderloin Lincoln Center closed, his team reorganized the neighborhood into four zones and committed to working each area seven days a week, not to displace people, but to offer, repeated outreach, wellness checks, and sheltered connections. In the face of an unsheltered population of thousands, his steady presence makes a difference in work that is often grueling and underappreciated, but he knows there is progress through persistence. What makes Mark truly remarkable is how he bears his responsibilities with humility. He's not someone who seeks headlines, but whether it's in interviews, in public presentations, in private conversations, or even in depositions in civil litigation. He doesn't shy away from, the hard truths. He recognizes the scale of the challenge and acknowledges the truth all of us need to hear. And, I quote, there is so much need out here and not enough of us to help. Mark is the kind of dedicated public servant we need many more of. Someone who believes that meaningful change isn't about ticking boxes, but building bridges over time. Today, as we honor Mark, we celebrate more than his role or his title. We celebrate his spirit of service rooted in pragmatism and genuine compassion. Someone who doesn't just coordinate emergency operations, but sustains healing work in the toughest parts of our city. San Francisco is better and more resilient because of Mark Mazz's tireless commitment, his empathy under pressure, his courage to show up day after do day for those who need it most. Congratulations, Mark. We are blessed to have you as our fellow public servant, and we thank you for your service and your professionalism. And I and I have a couple we have a couple colleagues who wanna say a few words.

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

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Well, first, supervisor Dorsey, thank you so much for for recognizing someone that I consider to be a hero of San Francisco. Mark, you've been a great friend to me. Since I started working with the city three years ago, you've been one of the most generous people to me on a personal level. But really, where I see your value is on the street. You are compassionate. You are aggressive. You are thoughtful. You are realistic. And you never, never stop. You are exactly the kind of person that this city and every person needs fighting for every one of us. I am so grateful to call you a friend, to call you a colleague, to have been able to work alongside you, and hopefully to be in a position to support you because you support all of us so, so much. Now I also know that you're not alone. I see a ton of your colleagues here. Could everyone who considers Mark a colleague please stand up and be recognized, if you will? I'm lucky enough to have sat in a lot of meetings and a lot of Zooms with all of you. And I think you all feel the same way about Mark that I do. So to all of you and to Mark, I just want to thank you all for fighting so hard for our city. Congratulations, Mark.

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

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Congratulations, Mark. I just wanted to thank you, in this last year of getting to know you, walking the streets of the Tenderloin with the hot teams. I will see you when I'm not expecting to, and when I am expecting to. And I think it just speaks to the deep rooted commitment you have to this neighborhood, and of doing the work. And doing the work is is hard work in this neighborhood and your job. And I think one of the things I really appreciate about you is your personal touch on one of the most difficult crises in San Francisco. And it's that, from my understanding, you have firsthand knowledge of some of the things that matter most in the streets, which is people's names, their backgrounds, their histories. You develop a personal relationship with the people who are on the ground to help them get to a better life. And I think that level of empathy, and care, and resilience is what we need from city officials, and you exemplify that. You are the best fit for the one of the most difficult jobs. It's almost like the job was created for you. But we we are very fortunate to have you leading on this effort every day, and we're very thankful for your service. So thank you.

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

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, president Madeline. Just quickly add to the praise for you, Mark. You are the person that so many of us call when we need help and when we see people that need help. And I know that's a heavy burden, and it's a lot that you take on. And I want to recognize that. You know, a few months into my term, you and I hadn't met in person yet, but you were kind of that one person that I kept hearing the name of. And I was like, who is this Mark guy? Because everyone speaks so highly of you, and everyone's always saying, you know, Mark can take care of this, or Mark can help with this, or we gotta talk to him about this. So it's been good to get to know you more. I know we'll keep getting to know each other. And I wanna, in particular, appreciate your, your work and leadership, on, I think, a a model that we're all really rooting for and a model that we're all, invested in the success of with the neighborhood street teams. We know that there's a lot of promise there, and we need to keep improving it, because it is, you know, the model and the team and the framework that is going to get people into care and get people into services. So thank you for all your leadership, and thank you for all your work.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: You have a lot of friends in a lot of offices. The district eight office is very fond of Mark Maza. I, some number of years ago, I heard it said that San Francisco is the city that meets people where they are and leaves them there. And I think that that has, begun to change over the last several years, and a lot of it is your work. Of course, the work of your colleagues hey, Sam Dodge, and, Santi, and, all of you who, who do this work. It's really hard, but, I've seen dramatic transformation in the neighborhoods that I represent. I know the stories of people who had been on the streets for a very, very long time and who are now, not on the streets. I see, the care that you have for individuals and also the care you have for communities. And we are not close to where we need to be, but we have made lots and lots of progress, and a lot of that is about you, Mark. So thank you. And if I have spoken, that means you get to speak.

[Mark Mazza, Neighborhood Street Team Manager (DEM)]: This is not my normal work environment.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: We apologize. Those of you

[Mark Mazza, Neighborhood Street Team Manager (DEM)]: who know me, normally, you can't have me, stop talking, but I'll I'll be I'll be brief today. First, I truly am humbled just to be here and hear all of these great things. And, with all of the new street teams and the coordination we're doing at DM, I'm very proud of it. I'm even at the meeting last night, I feel like we're hearing city leaders talking about how they've never seen the work coordinated. And I agree so well. Working as a social worker closely with law enforcement and making it work is very different, and it's very necessary. I think that it's been made clear that we are no longer at DEM just working to end homelessness. We are working to end homelessness, crime, and addiction. And I thank you for giving us the tools that we need to do more, because it does feel at times like we've gone as far as we can with the tools that we have. And I just you know, I'm a social worker. I think about the people we're helping, but I also I wanna talk a little bit about the staff. I'm very lucky to work with staff from all walks of life. And everyone's tired. And there's a there's a common thread. People cleaning the street, Department of Public Works, they work very hard to show up the next day like they were never there. Outreach workers celebrate getting people into shelter and housing to see them back where they were the day before. Our fire department paramedics take people to the emergency room to see them where they were when they picked them up. Our ambassadors and practitioners are literally bringing people back to life, reversing overdoses to find them where they were yesterday. Our street based medical providers are sending people to the hospital, sometimes voluntarily and sometimes against their will, to find them where they were yesterday. Our police officers arresting people for crime to find them back where they were. So in short, you stole my thunder a little bit, but they've heard it too way too many times. But the the motto for our street teams often is that we're we're going to be compassionate and meet people where they are at, but we can no longer leave them where they are. So that's that's it for me.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Smile.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Madam Clerk, let's go to our 3PM special order. Please call item number 34.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 34 is a hearing at the Board of Supervisors, sitting as a committee of the whole, to hear and receive updates on the progress and implementation status of the United States Department of Justice recommendations regarding reforms within the police department.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: Good afternoon.

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

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: Can I speak? Are we ready?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Oh, actually, I guess I do have some some words. Supervisor Walton, do you have some words? Perhaps? Yeah. We, colleagues, we're now sitting as committee of the whole to receive another update on these findings and recommendations, and I believe supervisor Walton has some remarks.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you so much, president Melderman. And I wanna thank the department for being here this afternoon. Just to give a brief history, SFPD requested the US Department of Justice to come in and assess its practices. And in 2016, they provided a report with several findings and 272 recommendations for the department. The US Department Of Justice ended its partnership with SFPD in 2017, and the California Department of Justice agreed to work with SFPD in 2018, along with consulting firm, Zients and Hughes, to address the reforms. The 02/1972 Department of Justice recommendations for SFPD have led to some changes and improvements for the department. But there is still more work to do to gain the trust and improve relationships between communities of color and law enforcement. Today's Committee of the Whole is an update on where the department is in regard to those 272 recommendations and next steps. I know we will hear from Asia Stevens, policy development division manager, and I believe Nicole Jones, deputy chief of administration. Then, of course, we will hear from colleagues with any statements or questions and go on to public comment. You have the floor.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: Thank you so much. My name is Aja Steves. I am the manager of the policy development division with San Francisco Police Department. We can just get right into the slides and keep it very brief. Supervisor Walton basically did my first slide for me, so that's lovely. The overview, why we're here, again, we did request. This was a voluntary effort. This was not a consent decree to get into the assessment of law enforcement practices here in San Francisco. Of the 272 recommendations issued in February in 2016, we have reached 263 in subs substantial compliance. So we do have nine pending. If we can get the, presentation up for everyone to see. Thank you. We were here in May. So May 6, we did provide a comprehensive overview with phase timelines, reform highlights, and a review of the Cal DOJ final report and next steps. So we can go to the next slide. Of the remaining nine, all of actually, eight of them directly link to the implementation of a data dashboard. One indirectly links to that dashboard. So as you can see, again, there's performance evaluation process, data driven dashboard, supervisory accountability that relies on data indicators, evaluation metrics that also, relies on data trends, promotional policy that indirectly relies with the data dashboard, training supervisors, again, targeted training to interpret the dashboard. So all of these nine really do rely on a system that we do not have in place right now. Next slide, please. So I know the last presentation we came in May, we did hear, quite a few concerns from supervisors about data, about data integrity, about our systems speaking to each other, how we can make reliable decisions based on data. And so we wanna talk about the things that we are doing and are planning to do moving forward to make sure that we can meet those last nine compliance measures, and also just help us as an agency moving forward to make these data driven and data informed decisions for policy, supervising, training, and going forward. So big thing that we did is we restructured and centralized our SFPD data teams. This happened in July or August. We all of our data teams, we had several that were actually segregated and had different, reporting structures. Now they all report under the director of crime strategies. This is key. This builds infrastructure so that all of our data teams know what the other is doing. There is one central management team over those data teams, so that they can have all sit under the same umbrella. That ties, actually, to drafting and issuing a new department general order regarding data management. This also was at the request of the police commission, but also just an internal need. This will establish and codify standards used to manage data through its life cycle. Right? And so this ensures that the data is secure, that it's accurate, and it's reliable, and it's usable. Again, so this can be used to make policy decisions, make supervisorial decisions, to make training decisions. So that is in the works. That'll start in actually, it's it started this year, but it'll probably finish in 2027. Our cycle to update department general orders is quite long. It takes about two hundred and twenty five to four hundred and forty five business days to update a DGO. That's before it goes to meet and confer. And also with Prop E, there is a community engagement, ninety day cycle that may kick in. So creating a DGO is, lengthy, but it is, an undertaking that is necessary. We've also restructured the CRI sustainability so that it is under the policy development division. We believe with all of the sustainability efforts, it all ties to policy. So to have an eye on what's being updated, when it's being updated, how, an update of a policy could impact something that we've already agreed to do, we feel that it having it under this umbrella, will actually continue the sustainable sustainability efforts. We're also updating DGOs related to performance improvement and early intervention systems to align with the CRI compliance measures. Again, that'll be a, 2027 project. But that, again, aligns with these nine that are remaining. A big one is recruiting and hiring a CIO with industry wide expertise. So we need this. It ensures our staffing resource infrastructure we have needed for data management, data integrity, and data systems. And also seeking a new data dashboard vendor. I know in the past we've come and we've spoken to this body and said that we have been working with a vendor. We did contract with one, and we're finding that our needs actually just exceed their capabilities. We have evaluated it, and we're really seeking a vendor that can give us the things that we need moving forward. Next slide, please. So in closing, we will continue to acknowledge the foundation of reform work. It really is the foundation of everything. Accountability, safety with respect. These are things that are ingrained into all of our policies and into our training networks. Sustainability does depend on a fully staffed department. We do not have that now. It's always lovely to work on projects if you are fully staffed. We are not. So we are working on that. That is part of one of the c r a c r a buckets is recruitment. So that is taking a forefront on our activities. But our primary focus is on public safety and the needs of San Francisco. So overall goal is to apply lessons learned from reform to innovate, update policies, and recruit and retain talent to better address crime. The issues that were really big in 2016, still the core of what we want to do and how we wanna police, but we're facing new issues that we will use all of the lessons that we've learned from the CRI process to move forward and address issues that are big in 2026, 2027, and 2028, moving forward. So that's the brief update that I have. Again, I am I am here with DC Jones, so we can answer questions that you may have.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Thank you. Supervisor Balton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Madeline. Thank you for the presentation. And I do have a few questions. One of the major issues that we've seen here in the city, and we continue to see, is the disproportionality of police stops and bias around vehicle police stops, particularly in reference to race. Has that data improved?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: Supervisor, can you clarify? You said particularly as it relates to

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Bias bias when it comes to who police are stopping on the streets and services.

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: I think you said rates.

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

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: Race. Okay. I heard something different, and it was not a good word. Yes. So we have done a lot of work in this arena right now. The system that we are speaking about, that we are moving away from that data vendor, we are moving to a different vendor. I think that the additional information that we are capturing right now enables us to have a far better analysis of what our stops are actually telling us. So state legislation requires that we collect certain fields. It's all based on perception, what the officer's perception was as it relates to race and a host of other things. And the department has elected to bring additional factors in and collect more information than is necessary so we

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: can complete these analyses. We've been doing a lot of work,

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: analyses. We've been doing a lot of work. Everybody, I think, know is probably familiar with our QADR report that we publish that gives the rates as it relates to these traffic stops. But we've been exploring a lot with this vendor that we currently have as it relates to what the demographics are like in the district instead of just overall in the city. But what those demographics are like, who you're likely to encounter, at those times. So really diving in a little bit more. But there shouldn't be a concern that we're moving away from this original data vendor. We will not do so until we have a new system in place that collects the information that we need it to. So, we continue, again, to to do more than is necessary to try to understand as best as possible what's happening.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: But has the data improved?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: I think that it depends on what you would consider improvement.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Are there less

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: Are there less what?

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: This disproportionality gap

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: I would have to go back and check what the most recent report states, but I think that it's really hard to determine whether or not that's less even just based on the data that we have that comes out in the QADR report.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: So so I know and again and thank you, DC Jones, for being here. I know that's been a major issue, the disproportionality of less than 5% of the population of San Francisco receiving most of the vehicle police stops in San Francisco. I think that's a trend that, we definitely are working hard to get away from. I do wanna apologize. I didn't ask for that specific data, and I know there's been turnover in the department. But that's usually the type of data we get when we have this conversation in this hearing. So I know when we come back, we can talk more about that. And how are we doing on the evaluation of officers? Because I know that was something that was important and key as well in the recommendations.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: Yeah. Good.

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: So in terms of evaluation do you want me to cover? Yeah. In terms of evaluation of officers, so we're we're trying to completely revamp what our performance appraisal system looks like and really try to understand not just how people are doing, but what those specific stats, I think, that you are speaking to, what they mean, and what they mean about our officers. And I think that that's been a work in progress for a while. You just spoke to the fact that we have an entirely new leadership team, And we are trying to put in place a system that's not only gonna tell you us the things that I just spoke about, but that's gonna be sustainable. Because sustainability has been a huge issue for us, and making sure that people are completing these, that are looking at this information. Our early intervention system also is in the process. It was housed in this and continues to be, at this moment, housed in this other data system that we are moving away from because we believe that we can capture the data again better and make it more meaningful so we can understand what's happening here. But all a work in progress.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: So that is one of the remaining nine that we that's on the list. So, again, it's not completed. But just to follow-up on everything she's saying, that is one of the remaining nine things that we need to establish. And that does go hand in hand with updating internal policies, so the department general orders, along with the dashboard and the training, the supervisors on how to evaluate as well.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: And are have there been any updates in the hiring practices to ensure that we're hiring officers with integrity? Obviously, I know the work and the focus to provide adequate training in academy is something that has been prioritized. But what about even bringing in lateral officers to the department and making sure that we're not bringing in officers who have history of misconduct, of mistreatment?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: So, we have far more lateral officers that apply to come over to our department than we actually end up hiring for the reasons that you just spoke about. So lateral officers really gives us a glimpse into how somebody actually does the job because these are not people that we're trying to figure out how they might be a police officer. Laterals have been police officers before, so their body of work and all of their issues and triumphs is obviously of major interest to the department. We are incredibly selective about the ones we take. We are trying to work with lateral officers in the sense of, I don't wanna say headhunting, but I'm going to. Headhunting ones that are not necessarily looking to leave their agencies because, quite frankly, those are the ones that we're interested in. Those are good police officers who the thought hasn't crossed their mind to go anywhere else, and many of them have very well established, excellent careers. That's what we're after. A lot of times when people are looking, and this is not a blanket statement, but looking to leave an agency, we really have to look, you know, beyond the surface of this to understand the why for that, which leads us to a far greater number of lateral applicants than actual hires.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: I know the department has reported to addressing a good number of the recommendations. In fact, most of them in, as reported, nine remaining. And I know one of the things you said around success was not having, enough officers to be able to achieve success in those remaining nine areas, if I'm interpreting correctly.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: You're still speaking about that bullet point on the last slide?

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Well, you you list some of the reasons, and one says sustainability depends on fully staffed department.

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: I think sustainability about the entirety of the 272 recommendations. Right. The nine itself really does depend on a CIO, the data teams working together, a DGO about data integrity and data governance. So they do rely on additional items and factors, but not necessarily, sworn members. I think sustainability for all of the recommendations do depend on ensuring that not only with patrol, but also civilian staff, where we can capitalize on their unique skill sets to get things done.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: And I'm just interested how the department can report this achieved success with the team that you have in place, but wouldn't be able to sustain it with the same team?

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: We're not reporting achieved success as it relates to sustainability at this moment. We are setting up a new system now that we have established, and this happened in August, the determination that CRI would fall under policy. So really, we're at the stage kind of four or five when it comes to project phases of monitoring, and then project closure. So once we determine how to move forward, we really want to measure all of every single recommendation that has been implemented. This isn't just with the nine. We're going to have to get a system in place to review all of the recommendations that have been implemented, and then measure whether they are successful. Some of them are qualitative. Some of them are quantitative. So some can be measured quite easily. Some will be measured in a flexible way. But now that we have we know where it's going to live, now we know how to move forward with it.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: And what's the obstacle in hiring the CIO?

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: That is really staffing. It is ensuring that we have the staff to determine that they can look at all of the items and work with the department wide issues.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Right. But what's the obstacle? Why don't you have one?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: So we are working to hire a new one. So that, announcement will be out. We had a previous CIO. We are going in a different direction. And I would expect in the next couple of weeks, that job listing will be posted. We're doing, hopefully, a nationwide recruitment as it relates to this, because it's a critical, critical position for the police department, not just as it relates to CRI, but just efficiency in general and how we can do more with less at the moment.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you. I don't have any more questions, president Middleman. Alright. Supervisor Fielder.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, president. Thank you so much for the presentation. Appreciate it. I had

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: a

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: question about, you know, a few years ago, the San Francisco Standard did an analysis of stops and found that there was one I mean, there was one known instance of an officer. And the case was investigated by the Department of Police Accountability. Basically, under reporting, basically inflating the numbers of people stopped. More than 1,000 people identified as white by this officer. And Standard also found that several other officers had, in the majority of their stops, identified one individual, a few individuals with multiple racial categories. And this all serves to obscure the stops of predominantly Latino and black people being stopped. And so I just wonder what has been done since then to correct for this, practice of fudging numbers, whether that's discipline or something else. Because the data that we have is only as good as, what's being input into the system.

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: Yeah. We wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, those officer that did not go undealt with by the department, and I will leave it there. But I think now there's, like, auditing, looking for if any of those patterns persist in any other you know, with any other officer right now in their work product. So it's not that the department is turning a blind eye to that. Additionally, to make sure that officers jogging their memories, that they do their stops, because I think that sometimes that can be forgotten about. We're actually in the process of adding a checkbox on our incident reports that says, you know, that the step was done as just another extra layer. So there's been many things that have been put in place to try to prevent that from happening again. And also, it's pretty widely known throughout the department that this incident occurred, and that there were consequences. And that has hopefully, will be, for the future, a deterrent in addition to the things I just mentioned.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: And have we seen, a a decrease in, obviously, inflated numbers?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: Any yes. I would say that we haven't seen a similar situation as the one that you've just described. So and then any other ones would, again, be in we're talking the disciplinary arena at that point.

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Okay. Thank you so much.

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

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Could I ask just to to what extent could technology automate traffic enforcement? I know that we have had, red light cameras, I think, for twenty years. We've implemented, I think, 33 or or we've interment implemented speed enforcement cameras at at, I believe, 33 locations. That's only because the legislature is letting us do that much, but who knows what they will allow us to do in the future. And I'm just I'm not even certain if there's things that we're allowed to use or not allowed to use, but given the staffing challenges that we have, how how to what extent could we just automate all

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: this?

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: I think that well, you know I love to talk traffic, supervisor. So brace yourselves now. But, I mean, other states are looking in just beyond doing red light camera violations and speed. They're using it for things like no left turns. Again, that's not mainstream. There are other violations, of course, too, but I'm just I could go on for days, and I won't. But I think to the greatest extent possible that we can leverage technology to pick up those additional violations, it just expands the workforce. I mean, currently, the traffic company has, I would say now, maybe 18, because they've got a few extra motorcycle officers who are really have always, again, shouldered, you know, the bulk of the burden for traffic enforcement in the city. But for a city of this size, with the amount of people that not only live here, but that come in on a daily basis to work, sorely inadequate for the enforcement that we need done. So I think that we should really look into anything and everything that could be done here. Again, drones have been used in certain instances as it relates to this, but many further discussions have to to come. But I think there's absolutely the potential for technology to assist. We're just perhaps not even behind, but the states that are doing those additional violations are really on the the cutting edge of this. And most states, I think, are in a similar situation as California.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Great.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Okay. And I I just I appreciate that, you know, that I know that the data challenges, this was something during my two years in the department was incredibly frustrating to me. So I'm glad that is something that's being done. I will say I do wanna appreciate the work of the department and, honestly, the work of the Board of Supervisors and its oversight role on police reform. This goes back, for those who may not know, to President Obama's task force on twenty first century policing at a really critical juncture in 2017 when Donald Trump pulled the plug on police reform for 16 cities. San Francisco was the only one that kept going. But one of the things that really impressed me when I was working with Bill Scott on some of this is that reform is never done. And when we get to 02/1972, we gotta keep this going. And we probably have to keep these hearings that that's reform is something that it needs to be part of the culture. They were always looking at improving. So thanks for your work and thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor Walton.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Walton, any final thoughts before public comment?

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: President Mao, we can go to public comment, and then I'll I'll say something after.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Great. Let's open open public comment on our 3PM, hearing on law enforce on, findings and recommendations regarding law enforcement practices. This is not general public comment. This is public comment on this hearing.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Don't worry. Okay. So absolute incompetence. Artificial intelligence to which to make them give you the data it wants, obviously, since it's in control by who. Okay. So you are talking about sustainability of institutionalized child trafficking. That's it. So, yes, all the rest is absolute nonsense. It means that you are part of the game, a big problem because, meanwhile, kids are being trafficked. The evidence of institutionalized child trafficking is the absolute silence from the government and all the media system. That's it. So trust me. If you address this, you get absolute respect from everyone, the black community among others, because they are fed up with this silence. You're gonna you're gonna get absolute respect. Trust me, much less petty crimes and all this crap. Do what you can. I am here for you up to a certain point. Please.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Next speaker. Is it would anybody else like to speak on item 34, the committee of the whole?

[Richard S. D. Peterson (member of the public)]: Good afternoon. My name is Richard SD Peterson. Board president and new board member Wong, congratulations

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: for your

[Richard S. D. Peterson (member of the public)]: appointment. And I will be pushing to find out what your position on parcel taxes is, but that's not really why I'm gonna talk about today. Today, I'm wondering why we opened this meeting, claiming that we're on Ohlone land, and we have not only the the this building, which is beautiful, but we have the downtown the San Francisco Center Mall, which has one of the most beautiful domes in the city. And, I've always wondered why that property can't be sold to the Ohlone tribe. Who probably could come up with the money sooner or later, and then run a casino there. I've suggested a nightclub, kind of a Las Vegas style night nightclub. But what about, going through the work? If Donald Trump can get things done in a hundred days, we should be able to push it through. I've briefly looked at the laws on on operating a casino, and and if, you really had the will to do it, you could do it. Anyway, thank you for allowing me to speak.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you for your comments. Are there any additional speakers? Seeing none, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Public comment is now closed. Supervisor Walton.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, president Menelmann. And thank you, colleagues, for, sitting in this committee of the whole. I also wanna thank DC Jones and manager Stevens for your presentation. I wanna make sure that, one, we do thank the department for achieving and completing most of the recommendations. But I know, as a city, we still have a long way to go until everyone, obviously, in the city feels comfortable being able to move around. There's a lot of work still to be done with bias and police stops, bias and arrests for certain offenses or perceived defenses. And I wanna thank the department for working, obviously, with community on these things, but these are goals that we still have to reach. And so we will continue to provide our role as oversight body in terms of making sure that these continue to be addressed. And, again, appreciate everyone for hosting this Committee of the Whole today and would like to continue this item to our Tuesday, May 12 meeting.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Sir Preston Walton has made a motion to continue this hearing to Tuesday, May 12. Is there a second? Seconded by Fielder. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the motion to continue item 34 to 05/12/2026. Is that correct?

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: May 12.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Yeah. May 12.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Supervisor Felder Felder, I. Supervisor Mahmood Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelmann

[Unidentified voting member(s) (short vote responses)]: Aye.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Walter, aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The motion passes, and this hearing is continued to May 12. Madam clerk, now let's go to committee reports. Please call item 35.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items 35 through 38 were considered by Nope.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: No. I think we're doing 35 alone and then 36 through 38.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: I I make the statement first. Mhmm. Items 35 through 38 were considered by the land use and transportation committee at a regular meeting on Monday, 12/01/2025, and recommended to the full board today. Item 35, it is an ordinance to amend the planning code to expand the boundaries of the central neighborhood's large residence SUD and to apply its controls to all lots within the SUD to delete the Corona Heights large residence SUD and merge it into the central neighborhood's large residence SUD, amending the zoning map to reflect the deletion and boundary expansion and make the appropriate findings.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Apologies, madam clerk. I jumped the gun. Please call the roll on item 35.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 35, supervisor Fielder. Aye. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Maput, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann? Aye. Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton?

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong?

[Unidentified voting member(s) (short vote responses)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, now let's call please call items 36 through 38 together.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 36. It is an ordinance to amend the general plan to revise the urban design element, commerce and industry element, transportation element, Balboa Park Station area plan, Glen Park community plan, Market And Octavia area plan, Northeastern Waterfront plan, Venice Avenue area plan, Western SoMa area plan, the Western Shoreline area plan, downtown area plan, and land use index to implement the family housing zoning program by adjusting guidelines regarding building heights, density, design, and other matters, amending the city's local coastal program and making the appropriate findings. Item 37 is an ordinance to amend the zoning map to implement the family zoning plan by amending the zoning use district maps to reclassify certain properties, amending the height and bulk map to reclassify properties, change the height limits on certain lots, and designating various parcel to be included in the SFMTA SUD, amending the local coastal program to reclassify certain properties and designate one parcel as part of the SFMTA SUD and making appropriate findings. Item 38 is an ordinance amending the planning code to create the housing choice San Francisco program, modify height and bulk limits, require only buildings taller than 85 feet in certain dis districts to reduce ground level wind currents, create the residential transit oriented commercial district, implement the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's transit oriented communities policy, revise off street parking and curb cut obligations citywide, create the SFMTA SUD, permit businesses displaced by new construction to relocate within a conditional use auth authorization, and reduce usable open space and bicycle parking requirements for senior housing, amending the business and tax regulations code regarding the Board of Appeals review of permits, amending the local coastal program to implement the housing choice, San Francisco program, and making the appropriate findings.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you, President Mandelmann. And thank you, colleagues. This has been a very long, and engaged process, with, four appearances before the Land Use and Transportation Committee. I want to thank my colleagues on the Land Use and Transportation Committee for all of their hard work, and to the staff at the planning department. Prior to this coming to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, of course, we had hundreds of meetings with community stakeholders and neighborhood stakeholders before we even approved the housing element. And through our last mayoral administration, and now this one. I have always been supportive of bringing more housing options to my district. And while I wish there could be more that we could do as a city, I think that this rezoning package has improved significantly from where it was introduced by our former mayor and our current mayor. In 1978, we downzoned the West Side and some of the North Side Of San Francisco and concentrated all development to the East Side neighborhoods, to the Mission, the Bayview, SoMa. Demolition protections came decades later, in 2008, in response in due to tenant rights advocacy. The west and north of the city built very little housing. And the accompanying infrastructure to support that housing market rate housing and affordable housing, rental housing. But also, freezing the residential patterns of 1978 and even earlier, under the messaging of fighting against Manhattanization of San Francisco, led to a more segregated city by income, by race. Every social determinant of health, infant mortality rates, public school test scores, all these things are better on the West Side and the North Side of our city than in the East Side of town. Some colleagues have talked about this pitting the West Side, this rezoning map pitting the West Side against the East Side Of San Francisco. I would say we did that in 1978. In this rezoning, we are building a more equitable and accessible tomorrow. This plan is not perfect. It has been made better because of the efforts of the legislative branch working with the administration. Rezoning itself will not solve our housing crisis or our affordability crisis, but it is an absolutely necessary step towards meeting our compliance with the state, and meeting our obligations for our economic development in our tomorrows. So that we can move ahead with other important strategies to jump start more affordable housing, to fund it, to incentivize the projects that we want to see, and to ensure that tenants and small businesses are provided the strongest protections against any bad actors. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Matt Dorsey, Supervisor (District 6)]: Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Mandelmann. Colleagues, I'm a strong believer in this map and this legislation. In my view, the family zoning plan is the linchpin of a housing affordability strategy that San Francisco needs to survive into the twenty first century. It's a thoughtful approach that'll create more housing, enable more small businesses to thrive, and enable more San Franciscans to stay San Franciscans generation after generation. It will help facilitate new opportunities in neighborhoods citywide while meaningfully protecting rent control and demolition protections in priority equity areas. This package balances our obligations with reasonable, long overdue changes, so we don't have to see friends and family members priced out of our city. I wanna thank all of my colleagues who have offered amendments in in this lengthy process, to a plan to address many of our shared priorities. The incorporated amendment strengthened this legislative package and we're leading with our San Francisco values, I think, by protecting rent control, opening up new pathways to affordability, and encouraging housing near transit. I, especially want to thank Chair Melgar, for her heroic work, through the Land Use Committee. I am aware that I probably represent the most YIMBY safe, you know, housing friendly, density friendly district in San Francisco with neighborhoods that have produced a lot of housing and quite candidly are excited to see more. So I know that's not the case with many of the neighborhoods represented by my colleagues. There's a lot of competing interests, a lot of competing supervisor districts, a lot of competing neighborhoods. I'm just really impressed, Chair Melgar, at the work that you have done to bring this all together and hopefully land this plane, you know, in time. So, great job to all of my colleagues. Thank you to Planning, but I did wanna just say, especially to, supervisor Melgar, thank you. Supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mendelmann, colleagues. I do share the sentiments that it's been a long time coming, and, there are many, steps to today and through this journey, and definitely want to thank, Chair Malgar, for her effort and leadership, during this process. And also I want to thank, Lan Yoo's committee for their work and time spent, as well as our planning commission and planning staff. In partnership with community advocates and stakeholders across the city, we've been working in good faith to improve the proposed upzoning plan to ensure that we mitigate risk of speculative real estate investment and displacements of tenants and small businesses. Many of our community advocates, stakeholders, myself included, all have been supportive of building more housing that San Franciscans can afford, and we push for policies to build housing without displacement, prioritizing our efforts in identifying vacant and surplus lands, and advocating for bond dollars, tax credits, and state and federal grants so that we can build more housing. People, San Franciscans, need housing, both existing and new. We know that our existing housing stock, especially rent control housing, is our most valuable and affordable housing stock. This is why, colleagues, I think even today, as of today, I really hope to, still making this one more effort to ensure we protect tenants, and draw a line on one of San Francisco's most important values, our rent control housing units. At the Land Use Committee, thanks to, Chair Malgar and the committee, and that you all have solidified rent control units as an important affordable housing stock, and ensure buildings with three or more rent control units are protected. For that, we're really grateful, because, your amendments has shield about 80,000 rent control units from demolition. We do know, though, we're still leaving, approximately 20,000 rent control units behind, putting 20,000 households at risk of displacements and demolition. And it is true that most of them, are located on the West Side, especially in the Richmond. 30% of those 20,000 rent control units are located in the Richmond, the district that I represent. San Francisco is a leader in tenant's protection, and we have to stand firm to protect our existing affordable housing stock. So colleagues, for that one more try, today, I am making a motion to amend, item 38, file number 25,070. And that, with the goal is to protect all rent control units. And the amendment, is going to be very simple and straightforward. Is on, page 13, line 10. Again, it's for the item 38, file number two five zero seven zero. Colleagues also, there are actually, electronic file, in your inbox, through email as well. And sent to Calvin Yen on our team, at 02:02PM today. And then should you, so the amendment, should we decide to approve it, it will read as such. That, the criteria under the local density program will then read is not located on a site containing residential units where the project will require the demolition of residential uses that are subject to the rent increase limitation set forth in Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code. Colleagues, with these amendments, we will effectively protect all tenants currently living in rent control units throughout the city, many of whom we know to be working people who can afford to live in our city because they live in rent control units. They are teachers, nurses, first responders, bartenders, and janitors, and many more are immigrants. Truly are the working people that make San Francisco the great city that it is today. And I know this to be true, because that was my mother, a single mother, an immigrant, long time worker in Chinatown. She was able to work and live in Chinatown boarding North Beach area because of the rent control units where she reside for three decades, where I grew up, until she passed in 2021. And I am who I am today as a member of the board raising my family in Richmond because of the stable rent control housing I have growing up with. So, colleagues, I hope to have your support, in this amendment. I do want to also be transparent and be clear, with this amendment, should should it pass with your support and amendment, I am still not able to support this, proposal, which is rare for me, because, typically, when I contribute, and, to say that let's let's make amendments to a plan or to a legislation, I tend to hope that I could also vote yes to that plan or a legislation. But I still cannot do so today. For one, I know that, while we've been having a lot of these ongoing conversations, I do understand that while Chair Malgar and the planning, departments, as well as the mayor, have really have been open dialogue and having these conversations about what can we accept as as amendments, but I do understand that there is also a state department that is being involved and having, making determination whether these amendments, in a San Francisco plan is acceptable to the state standard or not. I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed where we're at. I'm disappointed that we're doing this because we believe that if we don't, then there will be a builder's remedy, a greater threat to how we determine our fate and our future and how we plan and build our city. I am disappointed that we, not choosing a path to figure out a way to either negotiate or frankly even fight, some of these mandates that are unfunded and, without a lot of data or confirm and independently verify data. So with that, thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Chan has made a Second. Motion has been seconded by supervisor Walton. Supervisor Sauter.

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. I wanna begin by appreciating everyone for their hard work on this, particularly the members of the land use committee, Chair Melgar, Chair Melgar, Chair Melgar, and supervisors of Mahmoud and Chen. I wanna give a big thanks to my legislative aide, Michelle Andrews, for her extensive work on this. And also to the dedicated staff at planning. Thanks as well to the many, many community members and groups who spent significant time working to give feedback and shape and improve this plan. This has indeed been a years long process. Much of the work actually started before many of us were in this chamber. Deep work has been undertaken to consider countless amendments. Given this, I wanna say upfront at this point that I will not be considering any amendments introduced today so late in the process. In fact, I believe any attempts to make amendments at this point are more political rather than serious in nature. Today, I will be casting my vote in support of the family zoning plan. I'm doing so because when I ran for office, I vowed to work every day for a San Francisco that is more affordable and more welcoming. And this plan achieves both of those goals. I love San Francisco. And I know we're all in this room because we do too. I believe that to love San Francisco is to want so deeply to share it. To let others have a chance a chance to live here. Whether that means coming here pursuing dreams or seeking sanctuary, or to stay here and grow old here, to give your children or grandchildren a chance to also grow up in this great city. I'm raising my family in a rent control apartment in North Beach. My neighbors, my district are majority renters. I reject the notion that we have to choose between building more homes and protecting renters. We can do both, and that is exactly what this plan does by packaging the strongest possible tenant and demolition protections with a plan to allow new homes and neighborhoods that have typically excluded apartments and multifamily homes. This very body had a similar question before them in 1978. But for that board of supervisors, the question was whether to to down zone rather than to up zone. The 1978 downzoning resulted in making apartment buildings illegal in large swaths of San Francisco and decreasing the capacity of new homes by nearly 200,000 units. Not coincidentally, the areas covered by the 1978 downzoning largely matched the areas we are considering under today's family zoning plan. The findings from the 1978 downzoning plan predicted exactly what ended up happening. They warned of displacement of certain types of households, that prices and rents may bid upwards. And households, both current and prospective, would be forced to seek housing outside of San Francisco, adversely affecting air quality if automobile usage increases. All of those warnings came true. That 1978 board made its decision, and we've been living with its consequences ever since. This housing crisis isn't a natural phenomenon. It's a policy choice. One that has been exacerbated year after year, eviction after eviction, blocked housing project after blocked housing project. And now, nearly fifty years after the city's 1978 down zoning, I think it's about time we made a different choice. Some have made this plan out to be all about futuristic towers or big changes to our neighborhoods. That's not what this is. In many ways, it simply legalizes what we used to allow in our city. In fact, one study showed that 54% of the homes in San Francisco would be illegal to build today. It's a few 100,000 of our neighbors. My own apartment in North Beach would be illegal to build today because it is too dense. Yes. We literally have a law on the books today that says the three families that live in my building are too many, and only two should be allowed to live there instead by today's standards. The density decontrol changes in this plan would change that and would simply allow three families to live within the same 40 foot height limit once again. As we take this vote, I think about one of the few housing developments built in District 3 in recent years. Broadway Cove, an affordable housing site steps away from the Embarcadero. In 2021, a lottery was held for 93 available units there. 8431 people applied. It's been almost five years since those 8,338 people who applied were rejected. What message do we send them if we turn down this chance now to build more homes for them? A vote against the family zoning plan is a vote for the status quo. And it is a privilege to be okay with the status quo. Landlords and billionaires make their money off the status quo while families, renters, and working class communities lose out. And I'm not okay with the status quo today. Our own city economist has shown us data that indicates the family zoning plan will reduce the cost of living for our residents. The average home in San Francisco costs $1,300,000 and the average rent for a two bedroom is nearly $5,000 per month. What message are we sending our residents, our constituents, if we turn down this plan and literally vote against lowering their cost of living? This plan isn't perfect. Few plans are. But let's be very clear about what a vote against this plan means. It would bring the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in housing funds. It would block thousands of future affordable homes. And it would set us down a path to a flurry of builders remedy projects. Think high rise towers in any part of the city with no local involvement in these decisions. And that's not an exaggeration. That is the reality of what you risk by voting against the family zoning plan. To me, this comes down to a choice. Do we make the same mistake that this board made in 1978 by voting against allowing more homes? Do we choose to pull up the ladder behind us because we already have our slice of San Francisco? I know what my choice is, and that is why I will be voting for this plan today.

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

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Colleagues, first and foremost, I wanna thank the many stakeholders who put in significant work to shape the family zoning plan in front of us today, starting with the planning department team led by Director Tanner, Josh Whiskey, Lisa Chen, who've worked for years on this plan. I also wanna thank you, Chair Melgar. Over the several, several hearings, you've demonstrated your legislative expertise and immense patience while undergoing the extensive amendment process. I'm grateful for your leadership on the board and also on the Land Use and Transportation Committee. Supervisor Sauter, thank you for your partnership on a successful amendment that will ensure city hall is doing all we can to incentivize more family sized homes. And, supervisor Chen, thank you for your work on the tenant protections ordinance, which will further strengthen San Francisco's legacy of being a leader on rent control and tenants' rights. I'm very proud to be able to cosponsor your leg legislation. Most importantly, though, I especially wanna thank the District two community for showing up to the town halls, to the neighborhood meetings, to the community roundtables, to the office hours, to add your voices to the future of housing in San Francisco. Through these community conversations, I have learned and been able to respond to community feedback, helping successfully bring forward thoughtful amendments in collaboration with all of you. I'm proud that my amendments helped shape this plan to be as meticulous in d two as possible, going block by block and parcel by parcel while ensuring that we are not failing our legal obligation and jeopardizing critical funds as well as the very real potential state takeover of our planning and zoning laws. This plan is about the future. It's about creating a future that is more affordable, more accessible for everyone who wants to live, grow, and thrive here. This is about families that are starting here, families that are growing here, families that are staying here across generations. Right now, San Francisco has the lowest number of children per capita of any major city in The United States. We're the fastest aging city in The United States. And we all know that the number one issue for families is housing affordability. These are not a recipe for success. We need a different path forward. We need a future that welcomes families, that welcomes civil servants, teachers, cops, firefighters, our elders. We need a future that prioritizes opportunity. By widening flexibility for more housing, we're building that future and inviting San Franciscans to invest their lives in this city and raise the next generation here while all generations stay here. And while we build that future, we must also plan for ways to enhance San Francisco's unique charm that attracts people from around the world. That's why I'm excited to be pursuing an overhaul of the city's design standards with a path towards neighborhood design standards. I will be supporting this family zoning plan today as it will empower us to build more homes and make progress towards a more accessible, affordable, and attractive future. And I'll be supporting this because I also am not okay with the status quo. But we need to be upfront about the fact that zoning is not the only part of the status quo that must change. Zoning is not a panacea for housing in this city. If we just stop with zoning, we will fail to address housing affordability. Much, much more will be needed to address construction costs, neighborhood vitality, the way that we fund affordable housing. We must be honest about the fact that the way that we fund affordable housing is not generating enough money. And while the time for amendments on this plan has passed, I promise to continue to be at the table for these future discussions, engage all stakeholders, and put forth thoughtful ideas that build on the progress of this plan. So colleagues, I wanna thank you all. To the department representatives, thank you. And to the community members, especially thank you for the work that has been done to get to this point, and I look forward to continuing to work on housing affordability in the months and years ahead.

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

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you, colleagues, and thank you, president. I want to, again, express my thanks to supervisor and chair Melgar for leading this process for the last several months, and also the planning department for many years on this process as well. Before getting into my remarks, as a member of the land use committee that has been in the hearings for the last several months, I had a couple questions, actually, to get a better understanding of the implications of, supervisor Chan's, amendments. Would someone from the planning department be available to answer some questions? So as I understand it, she this is an amendment that is going to change, this language to all residential, households, rent controlled, as I understand it. Some one of the continuous points that we heard across the hearings was guidance from HCD, That if you remove something from the zoning plan, from a capacity perspective, you have to, provide a commensurate increase, otherwise, it risks being out of compliance with, the housing element. Is that correct?

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: That's correct, supervisors. Lisa Chen with the planning department. So, HED did issue a letter on September, I believe, ninth, right before the adoption hearing at the planning commission, that said that they had reviewed the ordinance as it was introduced in, in June. And, essentially, they found it to be compliant, but that essentially, we were very close to just above what we need to meet our requirements. And so that if we do make either reduce capacity or add constraints to development, so that could be new fees, anything that, creates greater uncertainty or greater timelines for projects, we would need to make commensurate changes in the opposite direction.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: We're receiving this amendment at literally the eleventh hour. Has any commensurate change been proposed to make up for the capacity loss?

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: We've we have not received any requests to make other changes to increase capacity.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: And what are the implications, again, of constraints and reducing capacity, that we've received guidance from the HCD? What implications do we have if we don't pass this housing element, and put us out of compliance with that direction directive that they gave?

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: If we do not pass the family zoning plan, or if we pass a plan that is not, sufficient to meet our requirement, which is for 36,200 units of capacity, then our housing element could become decertified. And this would happen after the deadline, which is the January. If we receive if our housing element is decertified, it means that builders remedy would go into effect, meaning that projects could come in and propose, you know, any height and density, as long as it's meeting, you know, essentially safety standards. It also means that we would be ineligible for certain funding streams, different grants, and and resources at the state level, including funding for affordable housing, as well as infrastructure. And we have tallied kind of the past receipts from some of those funding sources, and it's averaged about a $100,000,000 a year. And then finally, we would be, susceptible to other potential legal challenges. We could be sued or, be fined and and receive other penalties.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: So again, to clarify, you're basically saying if we introduce amendments that to reduce capacity and don't provide commensurate increase in capacity, we could be losing 100 over a $100,000,000 a year in a in affordable housing funding.

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: That's correct.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Another, claim that was made was that this plan puts 20,000 households at risk of demolition and displacement. Is there anything in the family zoning plan that makes demolitions administratively easier?

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: That that is not accurate. So our tenant protections don't exist in the rezoning itself. We already have strong tenant protections under section three seventeen of our planning code. As you are all aware, we also have, a a pending proposal, the tenant protections ordinance, which is, led by supervisor Chen, and cosponsored by many of you, which is going to strengthen those protections even further. And we do have evidence that those protections have been a successful deterrent to demolitions, because they make it extremely difficult to demolish. You need, for any demolition of a rent controlled building, you are required to go to a planning commission hearing for a conditional use authorization. Those are often denied. And so we have seen that that has resulted in an extremely low number of all units, and particularly rent controlled units, being demolished.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: And what you're referring to is that we have upzoned on the East Side of the city, and we have not seen thousands of units of displacement in that context.

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: That is correct. We've evaluated the data going back to years before rezoning, and we have not seen any particular uptick or increase in the number of demolitions after rezoning efforts elsewhere in the city.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you. And just to reiterate this point, as a result of the legislation on the tenant protection ordinance, we're actually, at this time, once that passes as well, making San Francisco the strongest city in, I believe, the nation on tenant protections.

[Lisa Chen, San Francisco Planning Department]: I I don't know that I It's California. Yes. Maybe the city attorneys or somebody who's more intimately familiar with other cities would be able to pine further. But, we are we are known as having very strong protections. We know they're very hard fought and won protections. You know, many cities do not have, public hearings for demolition, proposals. So we we think that that has really created a disincentive, to demolish units in large numbers. As I mentioned, we do see some demolitions every year, but they're very small in terms of the percentage of units.

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: Thank you. That answers my questions. Colleagues, based on that context, I wanna, I think, reiterate, what is the family zoning plan? What does it do? What are its impacts and what are its benefits? I think that's been lost amidst a lot of the conversation that we've been having. The family zoning plan with the zoning changes that it is producing along sort of specific corridors, the increased density allowances in neighborhoods, and the new local density bonus program will make it easier to add much needed housing units to improve affordability, livability, and vitality in this great city. This plan creates capacity as mandated by our housing element for 36,000 homes to be built, largely in areas on the West Side and North of the city that have seen little to no development in the past decades. It creates a local density bonus program that encourages new, denser housing in a way that conforms to our values in San Francisco. And to reiterate, this local density bonus program creates incentives to generate affordable housing funding, including for innovative modalities, like a 100% rent controlled buildings as well. It changes the rules that we that where we already have 40 foot buildings, those buildings are no longer limited by the number of units they have, just their size and shape. It encourages bringing not just more shoppers to our commercial corridors through new housing on vacant and underutilized sites, but also incentivizes builders to make their commercial spaces move in ready. Perhaps most importantly, it will enable San Francisco to control its own destiny when it comes to housing, protecting us from state penalties like we just heard. But like we've just heard, it is important to reiterate what this plan does not do. In most areas, the legislation doesn't increase heights. Where it does, it only increases by a few stories than what is currently allowed under current zoning and around the same heights that are currently allowed by the state's density bonus program. As we just heard from the planning department, nothing in this legislation will make it easier to evict tenants or demolish buildings. In fact, through this process, we have strengthened those tenant protections. And I think it's important to note that when these statements about demolishing 20,000 homes are said, it is fear mongering. It's not true. It is factually not true. And it's exploiting genuine concerns of residents across the city to score political points. That's not leadership. It's emotional exploitation. And our residents deserve better. And so on this note, I want to thank the hard work of supervisors Chen and Malgar on the tenant protection ordinance, which will strengthen our network of laws and programs that support existing tenants in buildings of all types and all sizes, providing our city the strongest tenant protections in the country. And thanks to supervisor Melgar, if there's anyone looking to demolish a rent controlled apartment building with three or more units to take out local landmarks, they cannot do so. Any effort to amend the local density bonus program at this stage sends a message that we are not serious about tackling our affordability crisis because it would be sending a message that we are comfortable with losing over a $100,000,000 of affordable housing funding a year. And to also make claims that we should be fighting the state is clearly not responsible at a time when we should be fighting the president in Washington DC. We should be focusing our efforts there rather than at a state whose help we need to survive the current administration. The best way for us to help renters isn't an obtuse tool that freezes the built environment in amber. It's making sure renters have more places to call home, and protecting existing tenants as our city creates housing to welcome new neighbors. I love San Francisco. I know all of you do as well. And, fundamentally, I think some of the resistance to this legislation is an affinity for the status quo, as my colleagues have said. But that status quo is a zoning paradigm that is centered around an exclusionary zoning process that has a racist history in our in our an unfortunate history around a nightmarish housing affordability landscape, one that forces many of the very people who make this city work, our teachers, firefighters, workers to commute from dozens or hundreds of miles away in substandard housing. We can't keep doing the same thing and expect different results. Our residents are counting on us to build a future for them. And what makes this city so great is how welcoming it is. I didn't grow up here, but this is my home. And I know many of you, my colleagues, are transplants, are immigrants, are first generation like me. And being welcoming is what has made this city, San Francisco, to grow, to change as all cities should. That's the story of San Francisco that we've known for across the world. But if we don't pass this plan, we lose that story and lose and rob the experience of this seven by seven city from others. That is not the message I think any of us wanna send here today. We are not we don't wanna send a message that if you're not from here, sorry, but you don't make the cut. If we don't pass this plan, we will continue the city's long descent into housing inequality, perpetuating the unfair systems that have grinded down tenants for decades, further exacerbating social inequities for our most vulnerable residents. If we don't pass this plan, the forces that have pushed our younger generations and families out of the city will continue unabated. The planning department has worked in the last several months to get this item to the finish line. They have engaged with HCD, with our offices, and directly with members of the public to answer any questions and assess the viability of dozens of proposed amendments. We've also heard hearings since October at the Land Use Committee, where we heard from our board colleagues and the public and made clear improvements to this plan. It is clear that this version of the legislation will be the one that the state accepts as a valid and compliant implementation of our housing element. But anything that adds constraints to development or takes away housing capacity could take us out of compliance. That would be catastrophic, as we have heard consistently. The noncompliance would trigger the builder's remedy, a path to nearly unfettered approvals for oversized residential projects across San Francisco without input from residents. It would lead to fines that would draw down from our already precarious budget and would even lead to the city losing access to many forms of state funding. Let me dig into that. Because going out of compliance would mean the city loses hundreds of millions of dollars for affordable housing every year, as we have heard repeatedly. That is disastrous for a livable city. That is not the city that we want San Francisco to be, one where our kids can't stay here because we told them that we wanted to win a political argument and risk a $100,000,000 a year in affordable housing funding. And I certainly don't think that's what many of our community members across the city want as well. Neither do the Council of District Merchants Association. Neither does the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Neither does the San Francisco Firefighters Local seven nine eight. Neither does the Small Business Commission. Neither does the Youth Commission. Neither do the building trades that build our housing, all who have supported and endorsed the family zoning plan. So in support and in collaboration with all of them, I asked all our my colleagues, let's do what's right for San Francisco. Let's pass this legislation as it is and start looking forward ahead towards building a more affordable and prosperous San Francisco.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you so much. I wanna start off by saying, to one of my colleagues who I respect, I am extremely glad that I don't have to score political points. But in addition to the fact that the plan will not protect all rent control housing from demolition, which I have to remind everyone is critical for affordability in this city. And the fact that this plan does not identify any specific projects or provide a route to financing for any projects, the plan does not lead to achieving the goals that puts San Francisco in compliance with the state. As a supervisor who actually builds and has actually worked with city departments, developers, both non profit and private, to come up with actual financing ideas never before implemented in San Francisco, now as a model that we all are using and supporting, that actually lead to housing. Without displacing families in communities like the Sunset, the Richmond, and areas outside of downtown, I wanna commend and say thank you to the land use committee for putting in the time and putting in the hard work. I know that times, we just won't come to an agreement on policy for many different reasons. But some of the slight amendments that have been put in place have protected people from losing housing in San Francisco. But we should not be displacing anyone in this city. We have a housing crisis in this city, and losing just one unit, just one unit of housing is completely arbitrary. But most certainly, losing 20,000 units is a major problem. And it's very arbitrary to addressing homelessness and creating the stabilization that is needed to keep our residents housed. And I know this plan is described as making San Franciscan is making decisions for San Francisco. But this is a response to state bullying, disguised as results oriented. This plan will most certainly have negative intended and unintended consequences. My colleagues have certainly labored over whether or not to support this plan. And again, I thank everyone for their work. But there is still too many issues in this plan for me to support in good conscience. As a supervisor who builds. Now maybe if it included actual locations for housing identified. Maybe if it included a financing package or a proposal to actually build housing. Maybe if it guaranteed not to displace families and businesses, and actually bring the desired housing that puts us in compliance with the state. This plan is good for theory and for rhetoric. Not for building, and certainly for not building for our most vulnerable populations in this city. And if you believe that the state of California is going to attack the city with the most millionaires, and the top five GDP for the state of California, to because they don't achieve or give the perception of achieving arbitrary goals that no county, no city in the state of California will achieve, I cannot adhere to that scare tactic. And yes, Supervisor Mahmoud, I have 100% agree with you that we should not be fighting the state of California right now. You are absolutely right. But there are times when we have to fight the state of California. The state of California didn't always believe in same sex marriage. Remember those battles? The state of California didn't always fight against redlining. The state of California sometimes defunds education. So you're damn right. I don't have a problem fighting the state of California when it's the right thing to do. What we have here is a bunch of people who have never built anything, trying to set policy for building housing in San Francisco. Not one of these units, not one of these proposed imaginary units will be built by where the mayor lives. Not one. This is a theoretical framework that will achieve nothing that puts us in line with meeting state goals, and it most certainly will not put us in line with addressing the housing crisis that we here have here in San Francisco. I cannot support this, and I know history is gonna demonstrate why this was a bad idea for this city and this county. We can do better.

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

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, board president. To begin with, I also want to thank my committee chair, supervisor Melgar. And I also want to thank my colleagues, supervisor Makmoo, and the committee. And also, I want to thank, all my colleagues at the board, and the planning department staff, and also the city attorney's office for all the work and support. As a vice chair of the land use committee, and also as a city supervisor that really care deeply for my city. I do not take my vote lightly. I have engaged very actively in this legislation since introduction. I just want to be clear again. I absolutely support building more housing. And it needs to be the right kind of housing. I and my other colleagues on the board, have worked overtime and approached this process in good faith to amend this zoning plan with every intention to make it better. We have sought to achieve thoughtful, affordable infill development that strengthens our neighborhoods without pushing anyone out, stabilizing our small business, and also support our residents to raise their families here in San Francisco. We have drafted common sense amendments that are pro housing and also pro affordability. Pro small business, pro tenant, and pro working families. I I have to repeat myself. It pains me to see that majority of these critical equity amendments have been voted down or tabled. Our teachers, bus drivers, janitors, nurses, first responders, and all the working families who keep this city running deserve real options to live here with with dignity. In my very own district, I have received constituent emails with a ratio of two to one to oppose rezoning. Simply because in District 11, we have larger households and many intergenerational families. We need development that ensures a good balance of family size units, housing price to reflect the affordability needs of working residents, and protection for the locally rooted small business on our business corridor. Instead, in District 11, we are seeing a development project on Ocean Avenue that displaces that displaced the four locally rooted small business by providing only nine affordable housing units. Six three bedroom out of 92 total units. When our mayor announced the family zoning legislation at the press conference at 1100 Ocean Avenue, Mayor Lurie uplifted Ocean Avenue as one of San Francisco's most successful rezoning programs. But 1100 Ocean Avenue was possible as a 100% affordable housing project and a new public plaza only because the site, it's on public land. The current rezoning proposal makes no such guarantee to deliver 100% affordable projects on public lands. The mayor's office, has really tried hard, to work on a math problem, but this does not solve, the affordable crisis that we have in San Francisco. And I believe that San Francisco has always been committed to meeting the state's housing mandate. Our city does have the ability to meet the goal while maintaining local control and developing housing that people can afford without displacing residents and small business. But the plan that is before us does not achieve that. It has it has been frustrating, Roe, to get to this point. Prior to the November 17 hearing in the land use committee, I was asked to water down some

[Nicole Jones, Deputy Chief of Administration, SFPD]: of my

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: amendments. I refused to negotiate away portion of priority equity geographies without impacted community at the table. It is really important to remind myself that I am the kind of supervisor that I want to be. To make sure that we continue to have a process that is transparent. That it brings everyone on the table. Also, in two today, it's twenty twenty fifth 2025. We shouldn't have to be reminded of the harm that redevelopment caused to vulnerable community in San Francisco in the past. For me, I think I have been very consistent. Let's build, and also let's do no harm to existence that let's do no harm to existing San Franciscans. Let's also to make sure that we prevent displacement, And let's also use every tool that we have to deliver true affordability to San Franciscans. I am, and I am always, stand with our families, our children, our seniors, our tenants, and our small business that makes our neighborhoods feels like home. We are the last line to defend for working fam families. And this is why I think the legislation as its current form, I'm not able to support. Thank you.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. First off, I wanna recognize the tremendous amount amount of work that went behind shaping the legislation before us today, specifically our land use committee chaired by supervisor Melgar, and supervisors Chen and Mahmoud, along with the planning department, and the work by our city's community groups, including the RepSF Coalition, Anti Displacement Coalition, Small Business Forward, and everyone else who provided critical input to this plan. On the whole, I'm supportive of incentivizing equitable development on the parts of our city that are well resourced and have not contributed to our housing pool. And I say this as a supervisor who has helped carry housing over the finish line at the board already this year, specifically La Maravilla at 16th And Mission in the face of heated opposition from a small group of local neighbors. And I will continue to do so in the coming months. This plan excludes the majority of District 9 for this very reason. The Southeast side of the city, including the Mission District, has seen vastly more market rate development than more well resourced neighborhoods in San Francisco. The Eastern neighborhoods plans incentivize development here, which has only been exacerbated by state density programs. In the Mission District, this has meant the displacement of around 12,000 Latinos, a vast increase in households making over a 150% of the area median income and a 55% increase in the Latino homelessness population between our last point in time counts. I'm also well aware of the reality of what's at stake with the various mandates we must fulfill under HCD and state legislation. All that said, it is critical that any local programs that are created by the city and county are responsive to our local communities. We must do everything in our power to avoid creating unintended consequences, such as displacing more vulnerable communities like we've experienced in the Mission District. San Francisco currently has some of the strongest tenant protection laws in the country because we understand how critical our rent controlled housing stock is for our middle and low income communities, for our working class, students, artists, and everyday residents. However, the fact is that we are having to update our demolition controls because of state laws like s b three thirty. I'm a cosponsor of supervisor Chen's pending tenant protection ordinance, which has been another laborious effort in large part because we are not able to keep our demolition protections as strong as we would like, or even as strong as cities like Los Angeles. And that is why we must do everything we can to ensure that tenants in rent controlled housing are not at risk of displacement, and that we exclude them from this upzoning plan. The plan before us today still includes approximately 20,000 rent controlled units. Why are we upzoning sites where rent controlled tenants live, and not Billionaires Row, Saint Francis Wood, Seacliff, or any of the other partials preferred by the wealthiest in San Francisco. I ask this at land use committee, and appreciative of my colleagues who have also worked towards the same goal. I believe that we could have created an upzoning plan that met the goals in our housing element while also protecting rent controlled tenants, but that is not the plan before us today. For this reason, I will be supporting supervisor Chan's amendments. And should that fail, voting no on items 36 through 38 as they are currently written.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Supervisor Wong. We gotta fix supervisor Wong's microphone. That's interesting.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Okay.

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: There it is. First meeting. Welcome. For for me, I've lived all my life in in laws in the sunset. Always, for most people, it's right behind a garage. And there's a living area kind of built behind there for those that may not know what an in law is or an ADU. And all throughout my life, my family's moved around different in laws. And I've always wanted to have the opportunity to have access to buy my own Sunset District 4 home. But that has been very much impossible. There's very little units that are are are condos or affordable that are in in District 4. Elsewhere, there are. There's plenty in other neighborhoods, in the more dense parts of the city. But Iowa always wanted to stay on the West Side in the sunset. And homes cost nearly $2,000,000 We need more housing options for our communities so the next generation of sunset families and young people like myself that have grown up in intergenerational households and in laws are able to have opportunities for homes. I'm glad that there were earlier tenant protections that were moved forward. And for me, I support the family zoning plan. And if we don't offer our own compliant solution, Sacramento will dictate zoning for us and we'll lose local control, which is not acceptable. I think that for us, San Francisco has an opportunity to give our feedback. And we know our neighborhoods best and not Sacramento. I'm committed to working with the community, mayor, and colleagues of the Board of Supervisors to immediately address concerns and consider potential trailing legislation to strengthen this plan. I'll continue to work with constituents to understand concerns and possible adjustments that can be made to the current proposal in District 4. I intend to work with the community and the planning department on potential amendments following adoption. I this today, I just met with the planning department and touched base with them to get further clarity on everything that's been happening in in District 4. And they committed to me that even after this moves forward, so long as the number, the housing number stays the same and is compliant, we can offer feedback to the plan so long as we, if we subtract anywhere, we need to add somewhere else. And I want to be able to move this forward so we are not breaking any deadlines and putting us at risk of the state coming in and us losing our local control. We have several deadlines coming up that really put us at at risk. And so I think that if we move this through right now, for at least for my district, I want to be able to, at a later time, also be able to make adjustments as necessary as brought up by my constituents in District 4. I'll be supporting this plan. Thank you.

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

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Thank you, president. I just wanted an opportunity to address some of the comments by my colleagues and also address the motion on the floor, because we did consider this at the land use and transportation committee. So to supervisor Walton's comments, it is correct. It is theoretical. This plan doesn't build any housing. It only allows more heights and more density. It does not build. But it is a fact and a reality that currently today, the zoning on the West Side and the north of the city does not permit it. It is illegal. It is not possible. So, this is why we have to do this. Most certainly, as supervisor Fielder, despite some, you know, statements done by a former member of this board of supervisors, this plan does include Seacliff. And it does include Jordan Park, and also Saint Francis Woods, and Cow Hollow, and West Portal. It includes the marina. It includes all of those neighbors. All those RH 1 D mansions now are density decontrolled, and will allow up to seven units in that same bulk and height. So it most certainly does. I also want to address this number of 20,000, because it's been thrown around quite a bit. So the planning department does not keep the data of tenure. That is something that we can get from the census, but it is an approximation. We do not have that data. We know which parcels hold two units or multifamily housing, but we don't know whether those two units are a single family home with an ADU, two condos or tenancies and commons, or whether they're rent controlled units built before '97. We just don't have that data. So that 20,000 number is everything. It includes co ops. It includes condos. It includes tenancies and commons. It includes single family homes with ADUs. We do not know whether it includes single family homes with UDUs because we just, they're illegal by definition. If you watch the land use and transportation committee, you know that the process that we went through to decide which amendments were adopted and which were not. We went through a thorough and very disciplined process to assess the loss of capacity, or the creation of new constraints for every single amendment. We looked at it, we quantified it, we got on the phone with HCD, and we ran it through. Whether or not we were looking at it correctly or not. And in fact, a bunch of the amendments that were kinda iffy, they told us, oh, I don't know, this thing might be a new constraint, or it might be loss of capacity. We still adopt them because it was worth it from a public policy perspective. Many of supervisor Chan's amendments and some of supervisor Chan's amendments were included in this fashion. The amendment that, put back the, unit mix requirements was a a amendment that each city actually flagged, and we included it because it was important to have family sized units in this plan. I want to clarify, to the amendments that, I believe in rent control, the importance of crime control, in preventing demolitions. I couldn't agree more. I think there has been a deliberate misleading of the public on this topic. Many people are understandably upset about the prospect of demolishing rent controlled housing to build higher. But the family zoning plan does not touch the process of whether one is given permission to demolish a unit or not. Because whether we like it or not, as supervisor Fielder stated, SB three thirty, authored by state senator Skinner in 2019, gave anyone the right to demolish as long as you add one additional unit of housing. Removing two unit buildings from the local program also will not prohibit demolition, but it will knock us entire plan, our entire plan, out of compliance with HCD. Because we can't support these numbers. We do not have that data. We do not know how many parcels have two units, a single family home with an UDU, and we can estimate that there's many, many more. We just cannot quantify it nor support it. This many people have single family homes with unpermitted units. This is a direct result of a housing crisis, coupled with zoning and building restrictions. And people for decades who have gone outside of the rules to deal with this housing shortage and make do. We need to protect renters, and we need to protect tenants, and we need to do it responsibly in the way that will be effective. The family zoning plan is focused on setting allowable face heights of the lots in different parts of the city, and on making it more attractive than the state program. That's how we get all these goodies, affordable housing, warm shelves for small businesses, rent control. All of these things we get because we are giving something in the zoning program. At the land use committee, we are still toiling away at supervisor Chen's tenant protection ordinance to make it as strong as legally possible. There will be some final tweaks to the language next week. We've been working with the

[Bilal Mahmood, Supervisor (District 5)]: advocates, and we have focused a lot

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: of our energy to protect 17 of 17 of our planning code, where we define what qualifies as the demolition. Beyond that, next year, I intend to work with our state representatives to reform s p three thirty, which has overwritten some of our local tenant laws. Us and some other, municipalities around the state of California who have strong rent control laws. For some municipalities, s b 330 was groundbreaking and an evolution, and much better than what they had before, but not quite for us. I will speak to this more, during roll call. But after all, they are there to protect San Francisco's interest. And if a law isn't working well for us, we should we should put some attention to it. And I commit that we will do that. I think that our time is better spent affecting real change at the state level that can actually accomplish what we want, than being counterproductive in how we are doing our zoning codes. Thank you.

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

[Jackie Fielder, Supervisor (District 9)]: Thank you so much, supervisor and chair Melgar. Just to clarify, my question was why are we upzoning sites where rent controlled tenants live and not Billionaires Row, Saint Francis Woods, Seacliff? These locations might be subject to density de control, but that is not upzoning, as is as are the parcels with rent controlled units. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. If I'm if I'm last on the motion. I mean, I I I do think that those communities believe that density decontrol is upzoning. Although, I strongly support density decontrol. I think those commune there are commune the communities on the West Side that are receiving this are, at least, in in some measure, expressing concern. I do have a question, Chair Melgar, if you're willing to entertain a question. You had said that the committee had considered this amendment, but I don't think this particular amendment was ever introduced in committee. Am I wrong about that?

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: No. The con the committee did not consider the amendment that supervisor Chan introduced today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. Thank thank you for that clarification. Oh, okay. Before I say anything else, supervisor Chan.

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: It was simply because the amendment, by the way, is legal, and signed, like, approved to form by city attorney, because our original was really broad. Original amendments was to not the no demolition for any project. Well, that no project should be allowed should they have demolition of dwelling units and residential flats. So it's much broader. Where today, we are simply to tack on the amendments that supervisor chair Malgar actually had proposed, which is no demolition for any buildings that has three or more rent control units to be, so to tack on that, we're saying, well, then, you know, let's protect residential flats that are rent control. And that is our amendment today, based on that. If I may, though, to say, it's really a policy decision that we're making. It's, it's, as particularly on this amendment, that I'm proposing, is a policy decision to say whether we're going to protect all rent control units from demolition, or only the 80,000 units, or just whatever it is, the three units or more buildings with rent control units. It's a policy decision that we're making and I'm asking us to make today.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Thank you, supervisor Sham. If I'm last, I am not sure that this is the forum or place, to make that particular policy decision. In one sense that, you know, of of course, we could act on this amendment today. But for the for the folks at home and I wanna start by expressing a lot of gratitude for, chair Chan for chair Chan, for chair Melgar and the members of the committee, supervisors, Mahmoud and Chen, for, of course, four meetings of the Land Use Committee, but a lot more work than that. And some of the work that was involved in this was, Chair Melgar, I think, getting on the phone getting on the Zoom, with, with State Department of Housing and Community Development, which has been closely watching this process in San Francisco. San Francisco is under is viewed by the state, rightly or wrongly, I believe wrongly, but is viewed by the state as a particularly bad actor that needs particular oversight. And, and so all of this has been carefully negotiated with the state, and, Chair Melgar has been doing that negotiation. And to the extent that she's been able to get, amendments, some of which came from me, approved through that process, I'm, I also want to express my gratitude for that. My understanding from the con from speaking with planning and speaking with, Chair Melgar, has been that, HCD is indifferent largely indifferent to the particular constraints that we put into this, into this legislation that as long as we're creating the additional capacity that we are committed to on our housing element, we can do it just about any way we want to as long as they're persuaded that it's real. We can, provide add additional protections or constraints around demolition of rent controlled housing. We can protect every single historic resource in in the city and county of San Francisco. We can do all of these things, but as we do those things, we have to identify the additional capacity so that the units that we're taking off the board are made up for by units coming onto the board. In that regard, I have said, that this board that I thought thought this board was gonna need to approve something generally in the neighborhood of what mayor Lohrey and the planning department proposed for some time now. I think we made some decisions early on to cut swaths of the city out of this, upzoning that, I think may not have actually been correct. I think there are parts of the city that, have not undergone prior rezoning that were excluded from this plan, that, we really ought to look at upzoning. I, frankly, for my friends to the west of Twin Peaks, think that, we may have gone a little light on on you folks. I think we made a lot of decisions and took a lot of stuff off the table that got us to a situation when this finally came to the land use committee for your consideration beginning a couple of months ago. You were in a tight little universe of where you could address my demands to preserve historic resources, everyone's demands to preserve, to preserve rent controlled housing, all the things that we wanna do. And in that environment, I think you, did the best that you could. It is possible that if this particular amendment had been proposed two months ago, maybe, and I think this is probably no, but it you know, there might have been some universe in which we could have cribbed and crabbed and somehow put because this is a many thousands of units. The implications of this are many thousands of units that are not currently in the plan, and we would have had to find those somewhere. We are not gonna be able to do that between now and the end of the month, and so I don't think that I can support this amendment. But to supervisor Wong's point, this is not the end of the story. We can and should pursue future upzoning next year, create additional capacity, and fix things that maybe in shot ought to be fixed, which could include taking this bringing in a supervisor, Chan's amendment, sometime next year. We would have to have a policy argument at that point about whether that is actually a good idea. Because the implication of this, this does not protect these units from demolition. It takes these units out of the local program. The local program is being proposed to provide incentives to to of to encourage developers to avoid using the state density bonus program. The state density bonus program is responsible for some of the most bizarre proposals for very tall buildings that look nothing like our zoning, and, in fact, much look much more like Builders' Remedy, than anything, allowed in our local remotely allowed in our local program. So we're pushing people away To the extent we go down this path of taking things out of the local program, we are encouraging developers, property owners to go down alternative state paths, which in my view are less desirable for San Francisco. So I'm willing to think about this amendment. I'm willing to think about it next year in the context of additional upzoning to, look for more capacity in the city and county of San Francisco, which I think we should do. But I don't think I can vote for it today. And so if there are no more comments, we should probably vote on the motion. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on the motion?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On the amendment to item number 38, supervisor Fielder. Fielder, I. Supervisor Mahmood. Ma ma sorry. No. Supervisor Mandelmann? No. Mandelmann, no. Supervisor Milgard? No. Milgard, no. Supervisor Sauter? No. Sauter, no. Supervisor Sheryl? No. Cheryl, no. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong? No. Wong, no. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? No. Dorsey, no. There are four ayes and seven nos with supervisors Mahmood, Mandelmann, Melgar, Sauter, Cheryl, Wong, and Dorsey voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: The motion fails. Alright. Colleagues, more comments or discussion on items 36 through 38, or are we tired? We we may we may have had enough. Alright. Then I'm gonna offer just a few more. Just a couple more comments. I want to, for my part on the legislation, again, thank the committee, but I really wanna thank, the planning staff who have had to deal with me. And, thank you, Director Sarah Dennis Phillips and Josh Switzke and Lisa and Rachel, for, for the men and Rich Sucre's over there with the with the historic preservation team. I expressed I've I've had concern, and it's less about the plan itself than the way in which state laws could interact with increased capacity as allowed under the plan and lead to the demolition of historic resources. And I got really concerned that given all the other constraints that had come into this plan through decisions over the last few years, that we were really doing this making a plan for the you know, to meet our to meet our housing needs through the ministerial demolition of our historic resources, which would be a really bad thing, in my view. And I'm still worried about that. But I am grateful for the collaboration, around a couple of amendments that, went in. And colleagues, thank you. Thank you to the Land Use Committee, again, for making those amendments. And thank you, Chair Melgar, for caring making the case to HCD. But really, thanks to, to the planning staff and Calvin Ho in my office, for, for thinking through, those amendments, and also thinking through more broadly, Adam Tonksavat. I I am hoping that in this by the end of this month, that we will manage to, make some announcements with the mayor about, you know, some broader commitments around historic preservation going forward because I do think, this density can make the city better. Density can make, our planning, our transportation systems better. Density, of course, hell can help address our housing crisis. But I worry in a densely built out historic city that we could lose, some of the re some of the historic resources that are really important to our neighborhoods, to the character of our city, and I don't think we wanna do that. And given the current context of our state laws, we need to get a ahead of this sooner rather than later. So thank you for all of that. Thank you to the historic preservation community, SF Heritage, for for their, contributions, to our historic planning to our historic preservation commissioners, who are gems, and who, had a lot of good thoughts about this plan, how to make it better. I just wanna extend a lot of thanks on that. Is this the perfect plan? No. Is it the plan that I would have written if I were the zoning czar for San Francisco? No. Is it good enough? Yes. And this is a case where I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good enough. And for those who worked on it, thank you very, very much for all that you've done to get us through a really hard project. Madam clerk, could you please call the roll?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On items 36 through 38, supervisor Fielder? Fielder, no. Supervisor, Mahmood? Aye. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelmann?

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Mandelmann, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sheryl? Aye. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong?

[Unidentified member of the public]: Yes.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? No. Chan, no. Supervisor Chen? Chen, no. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are seven ayes and four nos with supervisors Fielder, Walton, Chan, and Chen voting no.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: These ordinances are passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please let's go to item 39.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. Items thirty nine and forty were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on Monday, 12/01/2025 and recommended to the full board today. Item 39, it is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to eliminate the Folsom Street entertainment zone and create the West SoMa entertainment zone and affirming the CEQA determination.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: On item 39, 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. Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong?

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen? Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, this ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam clerk, please call item 40.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 40 was amended to strike rejecting from the motion, and it is now a motion approving the president of the board of supervisors, Rafael Mendelmann's nomination of Robin Abad Akabello for appointment to the board of appeals for a term ending 07/01/2026.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And we'll take this item, same house, same call. Without objection, this motion is approved. And we'll go back to roll call, madam clerk. And I think we were on supervisor Melgar.

[Myrna Melgar, Supervisor (District 7)]: Yes. Supervisor Melgar, you're next up. Thank you, madam clerk and president. Colleagues, as I had spoken about earlier, today, I'm introducing a resolution urging the state to amend the housing crisis act, most commonly known as s b three thirty, so that we can go further to protect tenants and rent controlled units from demolition. This state law was created to allow streamlined approval to demolish existing structures in order to build more units on the same lot. It includes provisions to temporarily relocate tenants and compensate them during the rebuild. For some cities, this legislation helps existing tenants while spurring development of more units on underutilized lot. However, with in cities like ours, with older tenant laws, it actually has undone some long standing principles due to unintended consequences in the state preemption. Most importantly, s p three thirty allows you to demolish existing rent controlled buildings as long as you promise to replace those units and add at least one more unit. But the look back period for tenant occupancy is only five years. So it creates an incentive to just leave the units vacant for five years to get around replacement units and tenant rights. Even s b 79 has a seven year look back, while s b four twenty three has a ten year look back. S b three thirty was also amended by its author to exclude tenants who make more than low income tenants from the relocation assistance and right of return, which is not consistent with our fundamental principles in rent control in San Francisco. Even for low income tenants, there is no requirement that their rental units are actually replaced with rental units. They can become condos instead. So the right to purchase instead may not be possible or desired. If you care about existing tenants and protecting rent control rental units, along with the small businesses within them, I urge you to cosponsor this resolution and work with me, with our state assembly person from 8017, who is the chair of the housing committee. I am committed to seeing this through, and I hope that you will support this as well. Additionally, I am introducing a resolution urging the Lurie administration to develop a platform and strategy to support the safety and health of women, and advancing gender equity in our city. I wanna echo, the sentiments shared by some of my colleagues, about the horrific abuse and dehumanizing acts that we learned about in our jail. It saddened me. It saddened me greatly. It nauseated me, and it also enraged me. What allows the types of heinous acts is a pervasive culture that devalues the rights of women. I am introducing this resolution to request that this administration develop and clarify the vision for women's success in the city. We make up 50% of the population of our city, and we definitely know that we hold up more than half the sky. I want us to take a real, honest look at ourselves as a city that claims to support women and girls. In the past year, we have demoted the department of the status of women with an independent oversight commission to a branch of the human rights commission, a department with a man as its current director. In our city, women make 78¢ for every dollar a man makes. We have made promises to women about workforce, about equity, about access to capital for women owned businesses. But pilot programs have expired, and the disparities still persist. We promised voters universal childcare four years ago, and we still have not delivered despite having almost $500,000,000 just sitting in that fund. San Francisco today has the worst health disparities, premature birth rates, and infant mortality rates for black women and babies in the state of California. We promised civil defense for victims of domestic violence when we passed proposition d. We still have not delivered. Resources to prevent gender based violence and harassment continue to be underfunded and diminished. Two weeks ago, Tipping Point put out a report on how poverty in San Francisco and the Bay Area is at an all time high. We have gone backwards. But colleagues, the face of poverty in San Francisco and in California is a woman, usually a single mom, receiving food stamps and Medicaid. We cannot, with a straight face, say that we care about poverty or public safety without addressing the specific issues of poverty and the safety of women. A few years ago, the then Department of the Status of Women evolved from an agency that concentrated on grant making, supporting women experiencing domestic violence and human trafficking, to a department that held our city accountable to uphold the human rights and the success of women in our city. We evolved from seeing and addressing women only as victims to a vision of women as successful agencies in their success and self determination. This goes beyond one department. We need a platform that is administered through our culture as a city and across our departments. This must come from the administration's leadership. I wanna know, what is our vision now? How will the new organizational changes support that vision? What is our role, and what is needed? What does accountability for women's rights look like? I look forward to hearing clarity, supporting our collective efforts, and I will be introducing a package that will lay out these questions and hopefully compel an actionable plan. And finally, I have some very sad news. Today we pause, to honor the life of Claude, the albino alligator, A one of a kind San Francisco icon, who brought a smile, a sense of wonder, and more than a few surprises to everyone that crossed this path. Our alligator with a mellow demeanor. Claude's journey to San Francisco began far from here in the bayous of Louisiana. Claude was hatched in 1995. He eventually found a home in the California Academy of Sciences. Claude, in all of San Francisco, celebrated his thirtieth hatch day in September, a joyful milestone that reminded us of how remarkable his life truly was. In a city known, for its characters, human and otherwise, Claude stood out as a reminder that even the most unexpected residents can capture our hearts. He became more than just an exhibit or curiosity. He became our shared community story. For countless visitors, especially for young people, especially my kids, Claude sparked curiosity about wildlife, respect for nature, and the importance of protecting the natural world. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, I wanna extend our deepest thanks to the staff at the California Academy of Sciences, and the dedicated animal care professionals who lovingly cared for Claude throughout his life, and shared him with generations of visitors. Today, we say goodbye to a remarkable ambassador who reminded us that San Francisco always has room for wonder, and to welcome those who are a little bit different. Sometimes in the most unexpected forms. The Cal Academy plans to hold a public memorial in the near future, but in the meantime, encourages people to share their memories of Claude and the messages for his dedicated animal care team by email at claud@calacademy.org. Rest in peace, claud. You will be remembered. You will be missed. And the rest I submit.

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

[Stephen Sherill, Supervisor (District 2)]: Colleagues, today I'm introducing a hearing request focused on expanding eligibility of Baby Prop c, the early care and education for all initiative. Now I think we all are very aware that San Francisco has the fewest children per capita of any major city in the country. And one of the reasons for that is that it is incredibly unaffordable for families here. And it's imperative on that measure to work, to make it more affordable, more inviting for families to start here, to grow here, and then to stay here in our city. And early childcare and child education is a critical part of that journey. This past July, the Stanford Center on Early Childhood found that three in four Californian families with young children reported difficulty making ends meet, with childcare being cited as one of the most common hardships. I don't think anyone listening is surprised to hear that. And if that is the case, we should do something about it. In order to bring real affordability for families, we must address these costs. Helping families qualify for subsidized child care is a direct and directly effective way to do so. Currently, San Francisco families earning between 151200% area median income, that's up to $311,000 Do not qualify for a family of four. Do not qualify for any subsidized care or tuition credit, despite baby prophecy originally intending to include these households. In essence, these families are caught in the middle. They currently earn too much to qualify for assistance, yet they do not earn nearly enough to comfortably pay 2,003 thousand dollars in monthly child care costs. By fulfilling the original promise of baby prophecy and subsidizing child care for families under 200% AMI, we provide instant financial relief, making sure San Franciscans are not living paycheck to paycheck solely to care for their children. Moreover, this hearing will explore how expanding eligibility can best support our civil servants and downtown workers, helping bring people back to downtown and revitalizing our economic engine. This policy is a win win. We have the money, and we have the care infrastructure to accomplish this transformative change. This past fiscal year, the Department of Early Childhood reported a reserve fund balance of $572,500,000 a key source generated by baby prophecy that can critically strengthen the city's entire early childcare system. Therefore, this hearing will be focused on how we can utilize this existing pool of money to fulfill its intended mission, making San Francisco more affordable, more accessible, more attractive for the families who are here, and the future generations of families who are building roots in our city. I want to thank supervisor Melgar, who has worked long and hard on this issue, and supervisor Wong for their early cosponsorship on this hearing request. I look forward to working with you both on this change to city policy and working with the department on this as well. The rest I submit.

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

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Thank you, madam clerk. Colleagues, today, first in line with city attorney David Chu's lawsuit against food and tobacco companies that deceptively promote ultra processed foods as healthy and disguise health effects, I'm introducing a resolution calling for certain city departments to review their distribution and support of ultra processed foods directly through contractors and to ensure alignment with the goals of California Real Foods and the Healthy Kids Act. And urging the Department of Public Health to develop a framework for identifying and evaluating ultra processed foods for the city to use in decisions concerning food distribution and procurement and for reporting purposes. Our communities have lived with the consequences of ultra processed foods for far too long. These products have shaped diets in ways that fuel chronic disease, and place the heaviest burdens on working families, low income neighborhoods, and communities of color. When an industry prioritizes profit over public health, the government has a responsibility to step in, demand transparency, and protect residents from preventable harm. If we want a food system that puts people first, we have to start with our own house. City departments support food distribution and programming that provides food every single day in shelters, jails, youth programs, long term care, and community based services. Thousands of San Franciscans rely on us for meals that should promote health and dignity, not contribute to the very conditions we are trying to eliminate. We cannot call for accountability from corporations while ignoring the impact of foods we distribute. Addressing this harm at its source begins with city government modeling the standards we wanna see across the country. This is how we advance health equity, protect families, and ensure San Francisco is leading by example. I wanna thank city attorney David Chu and his team for his leadership and for taking bold action to hold this industry accountable. San Francisco will not sit by while corporations profit from products that deceptively harm our residents. I would also like to thank my legislative aide, Natalie Gee, deputy city attorney, Jesse Lehner, and Anne Pearson for their work on putting this resolution together. This effort creates the foundation for stronger public health protection statewide, and it reinforces why it is so important for the city to examine our own practices as well. I look forward to passing the resolution and to bet to better behavior from our city as well. I wanna thank my current cosponsors, supervisors Chen, Melgar, and Sheryl for their support. And last, I have a letter of inquiry for the controller's office. Yesterday, we heard our ordinance to establish the reparations fund at rules committee. As you know, this board of supervisors commissioned a reparations committee in order to explore the injustices suffered by black people in San Francisco, and for the committee to come up with concrete solutions to address the harms of the past. The committee came up with over a 100 recommendations that will work to achieve reparations for black people in San Francisco if they met specific requirements identified by the committee. Through this, the city also provided a formal apology via resolution from this board of supervisors to the black community here in San Francisco. The recommendations provided by the task force are only lip service if we do not do anything to provide resources to address the proposed recommendations. Along with the ordinance to establish the reparations fund to receive monies appropriated or donated to support and implement recommendations described in the San Francisco reparations plan, Today, I am formally requesting a letter of inquiry from the controller's office, specifically the budget analyst in the controller's office, to forecast how much money could be yielded from the reparations fund yearly, and what mechanisms do we need in place to fund that account? The rest, I submit.

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

[Alan Wong, Supervisor (District 4)]: Submit.

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

[Chayanne Chen, Supervisor (District 11)]: Thank you, ma'am. Colleague, today I am introducing a hearing request in light of the atrocious allegations of sexual misconduct committed against at least 20 women being held in San Francisco Jail. This was not an isolated event, but the continuation of a pattern of pervasive behavior that has historically been swept under the rug. I want to be very clear, this woman and any other who have been victimized or abused, while in our jails are owed to justice. It is our responsibility to use our power to force these issues to light. I'm calling a hearing that will enable us to examine the conditions for women in custody of our jails, including safeguards for their personal safety and services or resources that are provided to them. I will also be asking what oversight policies and procedures have been implemented by the sheriff's department to prevent, report, or adjust allegations of sexual misconduct, examine the hiring and assignments process for jail staffing, the complaint process for women in custody, and the disciplinary process for deputies who commit misconduct. I want to thank supervisor Walton, Chen, Melga, and Felder for their early cosponsorship and their assessment.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Thank you, supervisor Chen. Supervisor Dorsey. You bet. Thank you. Mister president, that concludes the roll call for introductions.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: At this time, the board welcomes your public comment. Please line up on the right hand side of the chamber. As a reminder, items 36 through 38 regarding the family zoning plan have already had their public comment opportunity, so you're not able to comment on those today. You may speak on items 43 through 47 on the forward option without committee reference agenda and general matters that are, not on the published agenda, but are within the board subject matter jurisdiction. All other agenda content will have been reported to the board by an appropriate committee where the public comment requirement occurred. First speaker.

[Unidentified member of the public]: Yes. Okay. So before I forget, about the the lies behind the reasons you gave concerning the family zoning plans. Understand of family zoning and planning, generally speaking, is in the end of specifically and not only, but child traffickers from the states country, the whole entire government, not only in The US. Okay. So I'm gonna give this to you. If you don't want it, it's fine. I know I will have given it to you. So it means if you don't pay attention enough, considering it's not important enough maybe for you, you are we know what to think. Okay. For any one of you listeners here, who we who who got this in his mailbox already, About 3,000 were distributed already in the city throughout. Now it's going to go in the businesses and step by step. Just know you are not isolated. Your neighbors has one too. You see? So you can act even though the subject is extremely sensitive and big and, I agree, extremely disturbing. More disturbing, it's hard. Impossible. Child trafficking, institutionalized, child trafficking, murdering, torturing. I mean, you name it. It's there. So that's it. Forty five seconds. Yes. I was good. What else? You don't want to take a stand? It's gonna go in all police stations too. Fire departments, Oliver. I mean, it's already about 7,000 to be given. If people don't act, it's fine. My mission is on. I will have nothing to reproach myself. I'm protecting the kids. It's the only way. You can stop the mess you put yourself in. Once you address this, this is game over for the entire system, absolutely ugly system. Worse, you die.

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

[Unidentified member of the public]: You have one for you. Have a good night.

[Peter Warfield (member of the public)]: I'm Peter Warfield, Executive Director, Library Users Association. We can be reached at PO Box 1700544, San Francisco, California 94117 Dash 0544. There's a movie called The Librarians that is going to be playing this week, starting this week, December 4 at the Roxy. The makers were on the radio this morning, k a l w, talking about how it's documenting the attacks that librarians are getting with regard to the contents of their collections and demands for their removal, which isn't such a demand that's so unorganized. And I think it's very important to support our libraries as an independent and very valuable source for entertainment and education, especially about what's going on in our society. Unfortunately, our library in San Francisco isn't we're not aware of requests or demands to remove books, but we have had the library excluding, services to certain people. And we have had the library be very, very uncritically pro tech, almost as a recruiter for tech. They're constantly putting more and more programs on tech, more and more materials electronically, where those who don't have the access don't have any opportunity to get at, the materials and so on. One City, One Book, is is promoting the world's IC by doctor Fei Fei Li. Not bad for a memoir, but it's very, very thin on downsides of of AI and of tech. There is no reading material that's seriously visibly opposed to AI and, in general, to the downsides of tech. This is a book as an example, the age of extraction, Tim Wu, not on the list of reading material. The tech coup, not on the list. Once

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

[Unidentified member of the public]: I have someone come pass these out. Okay. You know, San Francisco loves AI, and someone I know created this report, using AI. So I hope you enjoy it. Please let me know if there's any, you know, an untrue stuff. As we know, AI makes, factual errors. So I don't know how you feel about the sanctity of your home, being allowed to control who enters your home. For many people, especially BIPOC LGBTQIA plus people, your home is literally your only sanctuary from society. My home is in a building complex, and the front doors to the lobby are what I control to allow access, including access to the government in general. They need a warrant for me to to force their way past those two doors. And many times, those doors have been the only safety I get from men stalking my wife and myself down market streets repeatedly. Because if you're a lesbian, or trans, or trans lesbians, guess what? That's a part of everyday life, being stalked by men. Scary stuff. So, you know, through no fault of the board, the board of supervisors, this one here who represents me, will be entering my building without my personal consent, but these are decisions made beyond my control. I am just here to express myself as a resident of San Francisco, a homeowner

[Aja Steves, Policy Development Division Manager, SFPD]: of San

[Unidentified member of the public]: Francisco who pays a lot of money for that one little piece of sanctuary, expressing my displeasure at having my government and also an elected SFD triple c person enter my sanctuary against my will. And that's all I really have to say about that.

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

[Unidentified member of the public]: Board of supervisor and office mayor of San Francisco. The title of this speech is grab the baton. A week and a half ago, I heard one of the board members running for congress for Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. I'm here to offer unwavering support for this particular board member. Being four years in Six Flags and a public relations officer at Six Flags, I do take care of the alligators, so I did met Claude. I also met John Guido Wires, starring fifty first State by Adam Sandler. So this is my spiel on the bug's bunny stage. Alright, ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon. Welcome to the Lunatyne Stance Off. Today, three of the finest are competing for the title best dance duo. Each one will choose a partner, a common sing to a song of choice. Well, folks, let's break them out. Here are contestants. The first is a bunny we all learned to love, Bugs Bunny. And being the lover of lyrics, I will have to say this. For that, the twenty second, I'm here to renounce my unraised, support being the forty eighth president of The United States for the well-being of The United States, the world, and interplanetary, species for dark no particle. Thank you.

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

[Perez Brown (member of the public)]: Hi. Good afternoon, board of, community. My name is Perez Brown. I am an entrepreneur, and, we all know that the Super Bowls come in here. And so with the Super Bowl coming here, I have designed a product, that will be a benefit for the guests that are coming here. And we all know about QR scan codes. And with the QR scan codes, they are, you know, basic and generic. But I created and designed this QR scan code, and it can be beneficial for for trafficking, for for transportation, as far as for guest scanning for information, and I can contribute to this new form of QR scan codes. It'll be one of a kind for built from Silicon Valley resident, and this would be the update model of using QR scan codes. And and so I think this would be a great opportunity to showcase and advertise here in San Francisco. When guests come, they don't know how to go on Internet. They can just we can advertise this around the city of San Francisco and people with this, scan this and get direct information about location, how to get around to different hotels, and, and having this at the airport as well. And so, if you wanted to know more, because this is my product, and I am looking for an investor because I don't have an investor at this point, because then I can use that money to build out my team that can help contribute to, pushing this out on a push this out to the public. Thank you.

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

[Unidentified member of the public]: I like to give gifts. Fly like a falcon up up to the sky. High high high. So ho ho ho like a falcon to the heavens high. High. High. High. Have the anticipation of the falcon and the pride of the leopard. In the times of the hunt, be graceful. In the times of war, victorious. Don't pay too much heed to the nightingale or the peacock. One is all talk, the other all color. You can fly. You can fly. You can fly. I'm tortured. I've been tortured. Charamatized. Miss without housing, without a place to heal from the being a victim of violence, not help from the victims of violence committee, not helped by anybody. Just struggling as a woman. Yes, there are sexist hate crimes. Yes, there are ageist hate crimes. Yes, there are xenophobic, racist at the yin yang, and they're in the courts. They are in the security system. They are in the housing. When you gave the Episcopal for a dollar, the housing at $10.66 and $10.64, they can't heat it, heat the tub. It's a flip of the switch, turn it up higher. They can't give you air. And then the park, the Yerba Buena Park, where it's just unbelievable with the marina security. It just cannot do things right. You are an enemy if you are an exceptional human being who wants to heal and be there to heal. But instead, you are abused abused because the security makes the rules that you are supposed that they're supposed to enforce. That doesn't happen.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: What Thank you for your comments. Seeing no other speakers, mister president.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, let's go to our for adoption without committee reference agenda, items 43 through 47.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Items 43 through 47 were introduced for adoption, but without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first appearance today. Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first appearance to go to committee.

[Shamann Walton, Supervisor (District 10)]: Supervisor Walton. Thank you, president Mandelmann. Sending item 47 to committee.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Sever item 44.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Okay. And supervisor Slaughter. I would just like to

[Danny Sauter, Supervisor (District 3)]: be added as cosponsor to 43, please. K.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: So with that, madam clerk, could you call the roll on all the items except 4447?

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. On items 43, 45, and 46, supervisor Filter Filter, I supervisor Mahmood Mahmood, I. Supervisor Mandelmann.

[Unidentified voting member(s) (short vote responses)]: I.

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

[Unidentified voting member(s) (short vote responses)]: Aye.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey, Dorsey, aye. There are 11 ayes.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved. And madam clerk, please call item 44.

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Item number 44 is a resolution to support the passage of the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act to root out pay to play by imposing donation restrictions to projects involving public property and calling on local donors to return their donations.

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

[Connie Chan, Supervisor (District 1)]: Thank you, president Mandelmann. Colleagues, as elected officials, we know how important it is for us to have a good government that earns and builds public trust. When we allow the culture of pay to play, we allow government's corruption to fester. And as a result, working people cannot depend on our government to deliver critical and honest services, and people suffer. Senate Bill 3,191 and House Bill 6,085 collectively call the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, are in direct response to the donation being collected, in our opinion, as a bib bribery to pay for President Trump's ballroom renovation and expansion, While American people are facing cuts to healthcare and food nutrition programs and elimination of many critical services for the most vulnerable in San Francisco and across the nation. The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act is the first step to impose restriction and limitations to private donation to require transparency and to enable enforcement measures. The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act also serves as a reminder for all of us as our city continues to seek private donation to support our public programs. Rooting out pay to play opportunities and setting regulations to prevent impropriety is important at all levels of government. And this bill is a good first step for the federal government. But we know more needs to be done, not just for the federal government, but in San Francisco as well. Thank you.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: Alright. I think, we can take this 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)]: We do not have any imperative agenda items today.

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

[Clerk of the Board (Madam Clerk)]: Yes. On behalf of president Mandelmann, for the late missus oh, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. On behalf of president Mandelmann, for the late missus Wathana Sapp. On behalf of supervisor Melgar, for the late Claude the albino alligator.

[Rafael Mandelman, Board President (District 8)]: And I believe that brings us to the end of our agenda. Madam Clerk, do we have 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, madam Clerk and colleagues. We are adjourned.