Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

SFGov TV. San Francisco Government Television.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the July 14th, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Chan? Present. Chan, present. Supervisor Chen? Present. Chen, present. Supervisor Dorsey? Present. Dorsey, present. Supervisor Fielder? Present. Fielder, present. Supervisor Mahmoud? Present. Mahmoud, present. Supervisor Mandelman?

Present.

Mandelman, present. Supervisor Melgar? Present. Melgar present. Supervisor Sautter? Sautter present. Supervisor Sherrill? Sherrill present. Supervisor Walton? Walton present. And Supervisor Wong? Wong present. Mr. President, all members are present.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, or 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 Ramachaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On behalf of the board, I'd like to acknowledge the staff at SFGov TV. Today, that is especially Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make transcripts available to the public online. And with that, Madam Clerk, let's go to our 2 PM special order, the mayor's appearance before the Board of Supervisors.

Yes, the special order at 2 p.m. is the appearance by the honorable mayor, Daniel Lurie, to discuss the eligible topic submitted by the District 9 supervisor, Supervisor Fielder. The mayor may address the board initially for up to five minutes.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

Do you have any opening remarks? I do. Good afternoon, Board President Mandelman and members of the Board of Supervisors. I want to start by thanking each and every one of you for your partnership over the past 18 months. During that time we have made our streets safer, improved how we serve residents, and created conditions where families, businesses, and communities can thrive. The results from the first half of this year show that our approach is working and we are building on last year's momentum. During the first six months of 2026, overall, crime was down 22% compared to the same point and period last year, building on a nearly 30% citywide decline in 2025. Car break-ins fell 42%. Car thefts declined 26% after dropping 44% in 2025. This year, 10 encampments had fallen to their lowest levels on record and are down 53%. since we took office. April and June recorded the fewest monthly overdose deaths since the city began tracking them in 2020. And people are returning to San Francisco. In May, Muni weekend ridership surpassed pre-pandemic levels for the first time. SFO recorded its busiest Memorial Day weekend ever. and half a million more tourists are projected to come to our city this year than in 2025. Our economic recovery is gaining momentum. Through Permit SF, the city is issuing a record 86% of permits within 30 days or fewer. Our new digital permitting system has processed over 1,500 permits in its first five months. And office leasing reached its highest volume since 2018, a promising sign that businesses are choosing to invest in San Francisco. We still have a lot of work to do. I am confident that the upcoming budget will build on the progress we've already made. Amid federal cuts, we are strengthening our social safety net so San Franciscans know they can count on this city. The budget maintains health care and food assistance, invests in preventing individuals and families from falling into homelessness, and protects core services that keeps our streets safe and clean. And we are also on track to close a $642 million deficit. This budget reflects what is possible when we work together. We are protecting the services that San Franciscans depend on and continue to drive a durable and broad economic recovery. San Franciscans are also helping move our city forward. This past Saturday, in partnership with each of your offices, we launched San Francisco's inaugural One City Day. More than 4,000 San Franciscans volunteered, cleaned parks, planted trees, painted murals, packed food, and worked side by side to improve the communities they call home. It was a reminder that San Francisco is strongest when people come together to serve one another. That is the spirit I hope continues to guide us as we continue the work ahead. I look forward to partnering with all of you to make sure San Francisco is safer, cleaner, and where every family, community member, and small business has the opportunity to thrive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Lurie. Madam Clerk, please call the topic for District 9.

Yes, the topic submitted by the District 9 Supervisor, Jackie Fielder, is Strategies and Metrics of Success at the Mission Street BART Plazas.

Supervisor Fielder, please ask your opening question.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Thank you, Mary Lurie, for being here. Mayor, as you know, the BART plazas have been a top priority for me since taking office. I'm encouraged that the Office of Economic and Workforce Development is leading a new interdepartmental effort that brings multiple city departments together to coordinate strategies and address the longstanding challenges that have impacted the mission. However, I'm still getting complaints from constituents and from small businesses and seeing for myself with my own eyes every day people suffering on the street with substance use disorder who need treatment, people vending both with and without permits, caught in chaotic and unpredictable enforcement and permitting systems, and unhoused people who need housing. What strategies and metrics or benchmarks does your office use to measure the success of the new OEWD-led 90-day effort on Mission Street? And according to these metrics, are your administration's interventions making a meaningful difference?

Supervisor, thank you. I appreciate it. And thank you for your shared interest ensuring our public spaces are safe and welcoming for all. And I would agree with you. It is not controversial to say that the conditions that 16th Street and 24th Street bar plazas have been unacceptable for far too long We must do better for the residents community commuters workers families and businesses who rely on these plazas every single day You and I agree on that and our team recognized that restoring these spaces will take sustained coordinated work We brought together city departments and outside partners for a 90-day multi-agency effort to improve conditions in this community and lay the groundwork for lasting, durable progress. Under my office, as you mentioned, and OEWD, we have launched a coordinated response that combines enforcement, outreach, supportive services, and community activation. Our goals are simple. Improve safety, stop illegal fencing, eliminate open-air drug activity, improve connectivity for transit riders, and provide welcoming, community-centered public spaces on these plazas. And we're not just increasing presence. We're giving every department a real-time visibility into who is deployed, where they are deployed, and what role they are fulfilling. By aligning schedules and operations across agencies, we can reduce service gaps and ensure more consistent coverage throughout the day. We are also strengthening data collection by integrating observation across teams so we can identify what's working, make adjustments, and get more effective over time. Over these 90 days, we will use that information to evaluate programs, make targeted improvements, and build a long-term strategy that extends beyond this initial intervention. These plazas belong to the community, and our commitment to ensure safety, dignity, and accessibility for all the residents, commuters, and families who should be able to use these spaces comfortably.

Supervisor, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Supervisor Fielder, you may now ask a follow-up question directly related to the opening question.

Thank you for that, Mr. Mayor. Can you elucidate more what metrics or benchmarks your office is using to measure success?

Thank you, Supervisor. Over the first month of our 90-day coordinated effort, we're seeing encouraging science that multi-agency approach is starting to make a difference. We're doing more proactive policing, which I know you in the residency community have asked for. Routine patrol checks are up 56% at 16th Street and 36% at 24th Street, with major increases in narcotics enforcement, moving violations, and felony arrests. At the same time, mental health and homelessness-related calls are declining, along with property crime around 24th Street. We've also expanded enforcement against illegal fencing. We've improved lighting, installed new cameras, and deployed ambassadors who are helping prevent emerging issues before they escalate. Thanks to the state legislation we got passed last year, with the support of the vending groups, we've issued 300 warnings and started issuing citations to prevent reselling of stolen goods, which we know can become dangerous. Our cleanliness, stronger coordination across state departments is leading to faster responses and more consistent maintenance. Encampment reports are down 8% at 16th Street and 30% at 24th Street. Our dedicated Mission Street Outreach Team, now under the Department of Public Health, is helping to address immediate needs while a specialized team provides intensive support for residents with complex behavioral health and medical needs. Together, enforcement and outreach are working hand in hand. Now, these are just early results, which are promising. We know, and I agree with you, Supervisor, that the work is far from finished. We are just getting started. and conditions still get worse at night when resources are limited, and nearly three quarters of service offers are still declined by people struggling on our streets. Our work will not be done until residents, workers, merchants, and families feel safe and are safe, and the plazas are once again places where community can gather. I look forward to continuing this work with you, Supervisor, and the community with urgency, accountability, and sustained collaboration.

Mr. Mayor, you may now ask a question to Supervisor Fielder or to any other supervisor in attendance pertaining to the same topic, but not necessarily related to the previous question.

No, I appreciate it. Thank you, Supervisor. Thank you all, and I'll let you get down to business.

Thank you for coming to visit us, Mr. Mayor.

All right, let's go.

Madam Clerk, communications. Minutes before communications.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Board of Supervisors welcomes you all to attend this meeting in person in the Board's legislative chamber. And when you are unable to be here, the proceeding is airing live on SFGOV-TV's local cable channel or live streaming at sfgovtv.org. As some of you may know, SB707 now requires remote public comment at the full Board of Supervisors meetings. As a reminder, it does not apply to committee meetings. Today, at general public comment, we will welcome remote public callers. Of course, we will prioritize those of you who have joined us in person first, and then we will take the remote callers. I will point out that the Board has an approved Board rule of order to prepare for disorderly conduct during Public comment must remain germane to the matters within the board's subject matter jurisdiction, and any self-expression that contains personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory remarks directed at any city employee or board member are not within the scope. And failure to respond to public comment Immediately redirect comments would result in the forfeiture of your remaining time and a transition to the next speaker. Remember to address your comments to the board as a whole and not to individual members. If you would like to submit your public comment in writing, you can send it an email to BOS at sfgov.org, or use the postal service, address your envelope to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number 1, Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102. And if you'd like to request a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, Contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now let's go to approval of our meeting minutes.

Yes, approval of the June 9th, 2026 board meeting minutes.

Colleagues, could I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented and moved by Supervisor Chen and seconded by Supervisor Dorsey? Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. And with that. Let's go to our consent agenda. Please call Items 2 through 4 together.

Items 2 through 4 are on consent. These items are considered to be routine. If a member objects, an item may be removed and considered separately.

Please call the roll.

On Items 2 through 4, Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton? Aye. Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, these ordinances are finally passed. Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Please call item five.

Item 5, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative, environment, health, labor, and employment, park, planning, police, public works, subdivision, transportation, and building inspection commission codes to modify numerous reporting requirements and to affirm the planning department's secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

I see many names popping up on the roster. I would like to speak first. I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak first from the dais. So I'm going to ask Supervisor Walton, who will speak later, to take the dais while I'm talking.

President Melneman.

Supervisor Walton admonished me not to look at his notes. Colleagues, I have circulated amendments that I would hope we will adopt today and then pass this ordinance on first reading by way of background to catch people up. This ordinance has been a long time in the making. City Attorney David Chu had heard from many departments over time that they were feeling burdened by the volume of reports that they were being asked to produce that in their mind nobody was reviewing and that we had a make work exercise going on that they were hoping someone would prune. And for many years, well, for years, city attorney Chu heard this, wasn't quite sure what to do with it. There's been a lot of talk about how AI has been used with this ordinance. The way AI was used with this ordinance was that a Stanford a Stanford learn language model, was brought to bear to identify all of these reports. The ordinance was not written by AI. The AI did not do the analysis of whether these reports were worthwhile or not worthwhile. All they did was pull out all the reporting requirements that might have been put into our vast code over time. This exercise identified 540 reports, and then the real work for the city attorneys and the people in the departments began, wherein they looked at each of these reports and they tried to figure out whether they were valuable, whether someone out in the world seemed to be paying attention to these reports and wanting these reports, or whether they were just a make work exercise. Based on that, they decided to leave I think two-thirds of the reports alone. So about 380 of the reports that they identified are not being touched. The rest, 140 some odd reports, this ordinance would eliminate, modify. The city attorney's office was asked to prepare some, many, many months ago, a smaller document, a nine-page report that walked through each of the changes generally summarized it so people could know at least what more to look for if they had concerns. Some of us took advantage of that. I did. Supervisor Chen did. Supervisor Sherrill did, I believe. Others may have. This ordinance was heard at Planning Commission, at the Building Inspection Commission, and also at our own GAO. I do want to thank Chair Sherrill for the work that he and particularly his staff, I think Lorenzo was working on this, did. in sorting through some of the concerns that they heard. And that was the measure that was forwarded to the full board. Now, as we recall, there was some discussion about this two weeks ago. Different concerns were expressed. And within the week before, between this going to GAO and coming to the full board, we did hear from the LBE, the small business community, with concerns about this ordinance, about other pieces of legislation. And so at that point, I asked, and the board decided to continue this item for two weeks. to address their concerns, to address other questions people might have about the ordinance. Through conversations with the LBE folks, I think there may well be work to be done in changing the reporting that they are concerned about, but I don't think we can have those conversations on the same timeline as the rest of this. Among the amendments that you have in front of you are amendments that basically take out any of the items that those letters from the LBE community identified as things they were concerned about. We also heard from the Department on the Status of Women with lots of questions. In the end, I think we addressed most of their questions, but there are two changes that we are proposing that would... on page 285, lines 5 and 6, restored the Department on the Status of Women as a recipient of a quarterly report by the San Francisco Police Department and the DA to various departments regarding domestic violence data. And they also asked, and we have included in these amendments, a restoration of the ongoing reporting requirement for DSW to report on the city's policy promoting representation of women I think it's on city commissions and then on page, um, uh, 18, um, there's a restoration of the, uh, sexual harassment report, um, by, uh, um, that's prepared by the department of human resources. Um, although rather than having it be a quarterly report as currently it would be semi-annual. So those are three additional changes that have come up in the last two weeks. And then there are a couple of cleanup items because it's been around, as I said, for a year. The city attorneys have provided some cleanup. Page 358, line 12, updates the text of that section to reflect the current code, which is different from when they first introduced it. Um, page three Oh eight line 22, we're removing a section related to the equal pay reports. That's already been eliminated. Um, and then on page two 82, uh, lines 14 and 17, we're proposing to change language, uh, to semi-annual instead of biannual for consistency and clarity. Um, in addition to those changes, we've also had, I hope fruitful conversations between our, our clerk's office and our city attorney and our city attorney. took it upon himself to do another review of the legislation, and based on that, to provide some clarification into the title, which I'm grateful for. And then I believe they've updated the digest that will accompany this in the official record. So those are the changes we are proposing for the board's consideration. I know this is long. It's a long measure. It's not the only long measure that this board has We consider a long measure in the form of our budget every single year. I do think there is a question about as these requirements that grow up over time do accrue, Um, what the most expeditious and reasonable way to prune our code is. Um, and, uh, I hope this is not the end because I do think our code needs much more pruning. Um, but, uh, I'm, I'm not planning on introducing another major one of these, uh, in my last six months. Um, I do think it's worth doing. I think there are hardworking people in every single department in the city, um, who, uh, question the value of their work when they know that they're preparing a report. and spending many hours on it that no one will actually use and would like to be doing something of more immediate value to the public. I think those are my comments. And I will now go back up and take my chair and allow others who may feel differently to speak.

Thank you so much, President Melvin, Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Mandelman, for hearing community out on some of these reports and for allowing us more time to look into this legislation. I had several concerns with reports being removed or pared down, including reports raised by the Department on the Status of Women, which I'm glad to see were reconsidered. And I'm thankful to Maeve Skelly and President Mandelman's office for going over other concerns with my staff, Jennifer Frigno. I support the vast majority of code cleanup in this ordinance, removing outdated and obsolete reporting requirements and paring down the frequency of some reporting from some departments. However, I have one major outstanding concern with this legislation, and that is the paring down of the controller's annual surveillance technology audit from once a year to once every five years. Section 2A.20 requires the controller to audit annually the use of surveillance technology by departments and requires the audit to include a review of whether a department has operated and is operating in compliance with an approved surveillance technology policy ordinance. has completed an annual surveillance report and such other information as the controller determines helpful to assess that surveillance technology policy. At a time when people are increasingly concerned about data privacy and how they are being monitored, I think the frequency of this report is crucial to honoring civil liberties and the intent of our city's strong surveillance technology policy. I'm disappointed that this reporting requirement will be pared down from one year all the way to five years. It is a significant undertaking in the controller's office to conduct this audit, but I think this is a priority for San Franciscans, so much so that I will not be able to support this item.

Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President Mandelman. I just want to say that I think it's great that the city attorney, city departments, and board of supervisors, and everyone but the public had a chance to weigh in on this dense document, which affects everyone. These reporting requirements are in place for a reason. So I think you should be proud to make so many changes without anyone knowing what's happening. This really should have been separated and taken up after recess with a public process. There is a lot of information in here. There are a lot of changes in here. This document is very dense. And everybody you described that participated in this conversation does not include the public, which will be affected by this legislation. I think that it is awfully peculiar that we are handling a piece of legislation in this manner with no public process, With so many changes, I just don't understand where we're going and what direction we're trying to go with city government. Because to support this, it's saying that we don't give a damn about public voice. And I've never seen us do policy like this in my almost eight years on this board of supervisors. where we have no public conversation, no public comment, no public weigh-in. I've just never seen this. I'm surprised this is even in front of us. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, President Mandelman. I just want to start my comments by thanking you and your staff for a tremendous amount of work, and also City Attorney Chu and his staff for the many hours they spend on the legislation, and partners who have done this. As I previously stated, I do believe that the exercise to evaluate and assess the code and clean it up is an act of good government hygiene. I don't know if that's a phrase. Our code has become convoluted over time and it requires regular cleanup of obsolete sections, redundancies, purging of sections that are no longer useful. And I want to be clear that I do think that that's an appropriate use of AI. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. However, there are policy implications for streamlining and getting rid of reports that I think are policy decisions, not just cleanup decisions. I do appreciate the amendments that you're putting forward today. Thank you for including a couple of mine. I just want to caution us that this week, of all weeks, I've been reading the paper, what's going on in San Francisco the last couple weeks. We were going to get rid of the report on sexual harassment. That's what we were going to do before the amendments, before you today. And they were caught by somebody at the Department of the Status of Women, which is why they're before us today. I very much care about this issue, but there's lots of other issues that I'm not watching out for. And in the 350-some pages... I was able to find a few things, but I don't know that I was able to do everything. So I will be voting against this legislation. But let me be clear on why. It is not because I don't think that AI, that's not reason. I think, to me, it's about the process. So, you know, we each have very distinct jobs in the checks and balances of powers of our government. I'm very proud of our democracy and particularly proud of the democracy that we have in the city and county of San Francisco. The city attorney's role and the elected city attorney that we have has a responsibility to keep the city from legal harm, to make sure that our codes are efficient and they're clear, to minimize the harm to San Francisco or the risk of legal entanglement, and also help make things more efficient. And I think that that's great. Our city clerk also has a responsibility to make sure that the records of our activities are searchable and that they're transparent and accessible to the public. And that requires a lot of organization and being able to do things a certain way. Our responsibility as a people's branch, as a legislative branch, is to make sure that the people have access to our activities and our full participants in our discussion. And we have developed these processes over time to make sure that that happens, to my colleague Walton's comments. While we did have a couple of hearings at committee, I don't think that the process was sufficient to encompass the entire breadth of what's happening here. And yes, most of it is, as my colleague Fielder stated, routine stuff, stuff that's unclear, redundancies, things that don't exist anymore, but some of them are actually legit policy discussions, but it's all mixed in together in one vehicle. And I don't think that we have had sufficient time, but more importantly, I don't think our processes are adequate to be able to handle something like this. So I will be voting against it, but I also want to make a point in public to request to our city attorney, please do not ever do this again this way. If we're ever going to do this again, please have the courtesy to us, to our integrity as a legislative branch, as a people's branch, to break it up by subject, by activity. If it's just cleanup versus reporting, There are many different ways to do this, but I don't think that this was the right way. I just want to reiterate this is not about... Well, some of it is the content, but overall the content I think is okay. The reporting I think needs way more work. And I think for me it's about the process and the integrity of us as a legislative branch and our role in providing transparent communication access and input from the public that I'm just not comfortable with. Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President. Colleagues, when I first reviewed this legislation, I was concerned that it eliminated several vital reporting requirements that are foundational to informed policymaking on land use and housing. Many of these reporting requirements were crafted with input from communities and community-based organizations that rely on this information to protect tenants and expand affordable housing. Some examples include indicators to better understand how Progress towards meeting affordable housing is impacted by the loss of rent control unit through hundreds of no-fault evictions each year. A job housing fit analysis to better document how housing produced it matches the wage level of new workers so that we may track our ability to house our local workforce. Reports and indicators related to tenant impacts around short-term rentals, accessory during units, and four plaques. and the affordable housing productions and preservation fund that has supported the development of deeply affordable housing and the preservation of existing rent-controlled units. It is concerning to me that these reporting requirements were on the chopping block in the first place. This is not simple clean-up of obsolete requirements, but real policy trade-offs around reports and indicators that remain vital now than ever, given the city's best with deepening inequality and many displacement pressures. And I want to really appreciate Supervisor Sherrill and your staff and President Mendelman and your staff for working collaboratively with my office to craft amendments to restore these requirements. And I'll be supporting this legislation.

Thank you supervisor Wong I Want to thank president Madelman and city attorney David Chu for working on this large piece of legislation Identifying the things that need code to clean up in our city city code it's very It's a very large code, and there's just so many requirements that city departments have. I also want to thank and acknowledge the groups, supervisors, and folks that reached out to President Mandelman and other folks to get this fixed so that we have more feedback on it and so that we can get it closer to moving forward. As a legislative aide, I worked on some legislation that sometimes included reports as well, and looking back at it now, looking and seeing, did we really need to have some of those reports? And sometimes we propose things because at the moment we want some additional feedback or accountability or we want to make sure something gets there. And so I think it also gives us a lesson as legislators in the future, then when we're working on our own ordinances, What are things that are important enough to justify reports? And what are things that are a little bit extraneous that may not necessarily need that? So it's something that I myself will be cognizant in the future when we're drafting potential pieces of legislation. So I just want to thank City Attorney David Chu and also President Madiman for the work on this legislation.

Thank you. And thanks to my colleagues for thanking Maeve Skelly in my office. I'd also like to thank Melanie Mathewson previously for my office. They both done a ton of work on this. I would like to move the amendments I have described and circulated as seconded by Supervisor Sherrill. Can we take that without objection? Without objection, the motion passes. And then, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended ordinance?

On item 5, as amended, Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton? No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong? Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, no. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar?

No.

Melgar, no. There are seven ayes and four nos, with Supervisors Wolton, Chen, Fielder, and Melgar voting no.

The ordinance is passed on first reading.

Madam clerk, let's go to our 2 30 p.m. Special order Yes, the 2 30 Special order is the commendation for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco All right and First up today we have District 4 Supervisor Wong

Colleagues, today I'm proud to recognize Lycée Francais de San Francisco in celebration of French American Heritage Month. It is especially fitting that we present this commendation today on Bastille Day, as we celebrate the enduring French ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity, as well as the longstanding friendship between France and the United States. Lycée has been part of our city for nearly six decades. It was founded in 1967 by a small group of parents and teachers, beginning with just 27 elementary students in a one-room schoolhouse on Geary Boulevard. Today, the Lycée serves approximately 850 to 900 students from preschool through high school across three Bay Area campuses. Its remarkably diverse community represents more than 50 nationalities and speaks over 30 languages. District 4 is particularly proud to be home to the Lycée's Ortega campus, located at 19th Avenue and Ortega Street in the Sunset District. When I used to live on 21st and Noriega, I'd actually walk up the street and always wonder what the building was. This historic campus has served as its middle and high school home since 2007, and has become an important educational and cultural institution in our neighborhood. Through its French-American educational model, the Lycée does much more than teach students another language. It helps young people develop intellectual curiosity, adaptability, empathy, and the ability to understand the world from multiple perspectives. For families who may assume that students must already speak French to attend, the Lycée's message is simple. No French, no problem. Its international track welcomes students without prior French language experience, making its bilingual and multicultural education accessible to an even broader community. This year, the Lycée also achieved an important milestone by becoming a fully authorized international baccalaureate world school. On behalf of the Office of the District 4 Supervisor, it is my honor to commend Licee Francais de San Francisco for nearly 60 years of educational excellence, cultural exchange, and service to generations of San Francisco families. Congratulations to the entire Licee family. And if you can come up, say a few words. I forgot to call you up earlier.

So my name is Emmanuel Texier. I'm the head of school of the Lycée Francais de San Francisco. Supervisor Wong, president, members of the board, thank you. It is a special honor to stand in this chamber today of all day, July 14, Bastille Day, the National Day of France, and here in San Francisco, a day when the French and American flags fly together over this very building. And as if the calendar wanted to make the point, for me, at this very hour, on American soil, France has just lost the World Cup semi-final in Dallas. Congratulations. If there is anybody of Spanish descent here, congratulations to Spain. Our students indeed followed every match of Les Bleus this summer, right here in the United States, cheering in two languages. I can think of no better image of the French-American friendship we celebrate today, and no better city in which to celebrate National French-American Heritage Month. France is America's oldest ally, a friendship older than the Republic itself. But friendship between nations is not sustained by history alone. It is sustained by people, by families, by classrooms. That is the work of the Lycée français de San Francisco. Since 1967, the Lycée has educated generations of San Franciscans in two languages and two cultures. From preschool to 12th grade, Today, nearly 1,000 students learn across our three campuses, including our Ortega campus in the heart of the Sunset District, which we are proud to call home and which Supervisor Wong will visit tomorrow morning. We look forward to welcoming you, Supervisor. Our students come from dozens of countries, but what they share is this city. They grow up bilingual and bicultural at ease crossing between languages, perspectives, and traditions. They graduate with both French and American diplomas. And this year, with our international baccalaureate track now fully accredited with no French required in middle school and high school, an asset for everyone in the sunset of San Francisco. Our students carry San Francisco's spirit of openness into universities and careers around the world. As we approach our 60th anniversary next year, this commendation means a lot and a great deal to all our students, our teachers, our families, and our alumni. It affirms something we believe deeply, that a school can be both proudly French and thoroughly San Franciscan. So on behalf of the entire Lycée community, thank you, Supervisor Wong, for this recognition. Thank you to the board for your support. Vive l'amitié franco-américaine. Vive San Francisco. And happy Bastille Day to all. Thank you.

District 10 Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman. Colleagues, in honor of Disability Pride Month, I want to proudly recognize Antonio Babytone Garcia for his unwavering kindness. Babytone, if you could come up and stand at the podium. I want to honor him for his dedication to service and the joy he brings to everyone around him. From day one, Baby Tone has been one of my biggest supporters. He has volunteered at countless community events. He has helped share information with families, greeted neighbors with a smile, and always stepped up when help was needed. Whether lifting boxes during the COVID-19 pandemic for food distributions and testing sites or lending a hand at community celebrations, Baby Tone has never hesitated to serve others. His commitment to community service is deeply rooted in his family. His father, Antonio Garcia, serves our city through the Department of Public Works, helping keep San Francisco streets clean. His grandmother, Lorena Oropeza, has dedicated more than 30 years to San Francisco General Hospital, where she currently works in labor and delivery. Their family's tradition of volunteering, serving on boards and giving back has clearly inspired Baby Tone, who is known and loved throughout the community. Everywhere he goes, someone knows him and for good reason. Despite facing challenges that might discourage others, Baby Tone has showed us that obstacles do not define a person. He approaches every day with determination, optimism, and a contagious smile. He reminds all of us that happiness, resilience, and perseverance are choices and that with heart and determination, anything is possible. One of the many stories that perfectly captures his generous spirit is when he learned how to place online orders using his family's phones. Naturally, he didn't just think of himself. He made sure to order for all of his cousins as well. And if he ever had $14,000 to spend, we are all convinced we'd each receive an electric bike and a helmet. Because Baby Tone believes in looking out for others and making sure everyone stays safe. Baby Tone has always dreamed of becoming a police officer or sheriff, and anyone who has seen him in uniform knows he takes that responsibility serious. At community events, he proudly helps direct traffic, keeps a watchful eye on everyone, and provides his own special brand of community safety. While no one is quite sure how he developed such a passion for law enforcement, it makes perfect sense and his greatest desire is simply to help people. His one requirement for everyone he meets is simple, smile. And thanks to his infectious joy, it's nearly impossible not to. Most recently, through the Opportunities for All program, Baby Tone achieved another milestone by beginning work at Jim's restaurant, where he proudly serves breakfast on Saturdays. It is another example of his strong work ethic, his willingness to contribute, and his determination to continue growing and giving back. Today we celebrate Baby Tone, not only for what he does, but for who he is. He reminds us that true leadership is measured by kindness, service, generosity, and the ability to make others feel seen and valued. On a personal note, Baby Tone has worked with me and community for several years, during COVID to feed people and in all my endeavors to get where I am today. Thank you, Baby Tone, for being an inspiration, a role model, and a shining example of what it means to put your community first. San Francisco is a better place because of you.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

District 11, Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President. May I have President Mr. David Hooper to come to the podium? Good afternoon, everyone. Today is my great honor to recognize the new Mission Terrace Improvement Association for over 75 years of services to the neighborhood. Founded in 1949, NMTIA has four study connections, hosting monthly meetings that connect residents with city departments, organizing neighborhood events, and creating opportunities for families, seniors, and youth to build friendships. Under MTIA's organizations, families look forward to beloved traditions, like our annual Fourth of July parade and picnic. In its 37th year, and other fun events like Easter egg hunting, and alleyway pastor festival. More than just fond memories, this event builds community so when something happens, neighbors show up for each other when they need it the most. Even in isolation, Mission Terrace remained connected. During COVID, they refused to let the neighborhood lose its sense of joy and connections. On Halloween, they organized their families placing treats outside their homes and built long candy so children could still experience the excitement of trick-or-treating. On the 4th of July, volunteers distributed sidewalk trucks so children and families could turn their driveways and their neighborhood streets into wards of art. Beyond fun events, NMTIA also makes a lasting impact through advocacy. They supported the founding of Excelsior Youth Center, supported affordable senior housing at 5199 Mission Street, fought for the renovations of the Youth Community Arts Center, and helped preserve the historic old Alamany Emergency Hospital, which today continues to serve our community as it names the Clinic by the Bay. Their commitment to community building, civic engagement, and public safety has made Mission Terrace stronger for generations. Finally, I would like to recognize someone who has devoted countless hours to this neighborhood, NMTIA's longtime president, David Hooper. David leads with an unwavering love for this community. His leadership reminds us that one caring neighbor can inspire an entire neighborhood. Please join me in congratulating the new Mission Terrace Improvement Association on this well-deserved recognition. And let's give a big, warm welcome to Mr. David Hooper to say a few words. Thank you.

President Mandelman, Supervisor Chen, and all the rest of the supervisors, thank you very much. I appreciate the honor, and I accept it on behalf of the Neighborhood Association and our community. We do other things, too. On February 14th, we have a pedestrian safety walk, and the theme is Stop in the Name of Love. You may have heard the song. When I moved into the neighborhood from where I was raised on a mission 40 years ago, the president was the late, great Tony Sacco. And under his leadership and direction and under, I could list 40, 50 people at a moment. And I think the same idea exists in our community now. So I would make a pitch for the full, restoration of the geneva office building at geneva and san jose as a youth art resource it's also where i took my oral exam for the muni railway 50 years ago and i think that Every effort that we make is duplicated in many other communities in the city. We aren't that special. People are doing this throughout the city. So thank you very much. Oh, and one thing. The neighborhood is Mission Terrace, but the organization is the new Mission Terrace. So just to clarify, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Congratulations, David.

Can I invite Allegra Madsen and Kate Beauvais and anybody else from Frameline who wants to come on up to come on up? Just Allegra. Just Allegra. Words that have never been said. Okay. Colleagues, it is my honor today to present a special commendation to Frameline, which just this past June celebrated the 50th anniversary of their film festival. The Frameline Film Festival, also known as the San Francisco International LGBTQ Plus Film Festival, is the longest running and largest such film festival in the world, drawing more than 50,000 attendees each and every year. In addition to organizing and producing the festival, Frameline works year round to preserve and promote queer film and media. Frameline began in 1976 when a group of young amateur filmmakers came up with the idea of a festival where they could publicly screen their own work. They organized the Gay Film Festival of Super 8 Films, which showcased primarily experimental films projected onto a bed sheet pinned to a board. In the years that followed, the festival grew, officially adopting the name Frameline in 1982 and moving to the Castro Theater in 1990. In response to demands for more diverse representation, the festival began featuring more films by women and filmmakers of color. One such demand, known as the Lesbian Riot of 1986, saw women storm the Roxy projection booth to protest programming. In response, Frameline not only expanded their programming, but also created the Frameline Completion Fund, which has supported more than 190 films and videos by emerging filmmakers to date, with a special focus on works by and for underserved communities. This year, Frameline 50 held June 17 through the 27th at venues across San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley, showcased more than 140 films from 35 countries, and brought together approximately 600 filmmakers and industry professionals from around the world. The festival provides emerging filmmakers with a global platform to share their work, forge industry connections, and reach new audiences. Frameline also honors outstanding films through its own awards program at the Film Festival and serves as both a British Academy Film Awards qualifying festival and an Iris Prize partner festival, annually nominating one short film for consideration for the prestigious International Award. Beyond the festival's 11 days, Frameline hosts screenings and special events year-round and provides vital resources and opportunities to LGBTQ plus filmmakers. For the past three years, Frameline has awarded the Colin Higgins Youth Filmmaker Award to emerging queer filmmakers, with the inaugural recipients going on to premiere their films at Sundance. Frameline also operates Frameline Distribution, the nation's only nonprofit film distributor dedicated exclusively to LGBTQ plus cinema and has helped restore and preserve queer films through Frameline restorations. For 50 years, Frameline has ensured that queer stories are told and showcased through film around the world. And we wanted to thank you and honor you and congratulate you on that achievement. And today we have the outstanding executive director of Frameline, Allegra Madsen, to accept this recognition. Allegra, the floor is yours.

Well, you stole my speech. I don't know, what else is there to say? Thank you, thank you so much. On behalf of Frameline, I'm honored to accept this. Frameline's mission is to change the world through the power of queer cinema, and that's the work that we've been doing since the 70s. This year, we turned 50, and this is a milestone year. We brought nearly 50,000 movie lovers, and this concludes 600 filmmakers and film industry folks from around the world. We brought them to theaters across the city, the Roxy in the Mission, the Vogue in Presidio Heights, the Castro Theater, and beyond. And thousands of people sat in the dark and watched their lives and the lives of the people that they love reflected back to them on screen. And that doesn't happen everywhere. It happens here in San Francisco. It happens here because the infrastructure to support art and queer expression exists in this city. Frameline exists because the idea of San Francisco, a city that values its people and the creative genius that comes from true diversity, is here. We are 50 years of that fact made real. So this commendation isn't just for us, it's everyone who's worked to build the queer space in San Francisco long before Frameline screened its first film, and everyone who's continuing to do that work now. And that's who I'm truly standing here for, for every programmer, every staff member, every volunteer, every filmmaker who has given their work to Frameline so that this city not only remembers its queer legacy, but keeps building it. That's the job. It's not just preservation, but it's construction, and that's the job that we're in. So on behalf of all of them, to San Francisco, to the Board of Supervisors here, you are very, very welcome.

Yeah.

OK, Madam Clerk, well, we made it a little way through our regular agenda. Let's go back to item six.

Item six. This is an ordinance to amend the health planning police and business and tax regulations code to establish a new permit type for cannabis cafes to be administered by the office of cannabis that will authorize the permit T to sell cannabis and cannabis products only for consumption on the premises of the cafe and to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings. This item was referred without recommendation from the land use and transportation committee.

Please call the roll on this item.

On item six, Supervisor Sautter. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton. Aye. Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Wong, no. Supervisor Chen. No. Chen, no. Supervisor Chen. No. Chen, no. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Milgar?

No.

Milgar, no. There are seven ayes and four nos with Supervisors Wong, Chan, Chen, and Milgar voting no.

The ordinance is finally passed. Madam Clerk, please call item number seven.

Item seven, this is a charter amendment, second draft, to amend the charter of the city and county to require or authorize the Board of Supervisors to amend specified initiative ordinances to transfer from the charter to the municipal code certain commissions and advisory bodies, in some cases with modified functions and other various changes, at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2026.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, I'm voting no on this charter amendment because of the sweeping changes it proposes to our citizen oversight bodies. San Franciscans passed Proposition E in November of 2024 to reduce duplication and increase the efficiency of our boards, commissions, and advisory boards, not to concentrate even more power in the hands of the mayor's office. to take a hatchet to commissions that provide oversight and transparency for the public, or to strip voters of the power to make future changes. While there may be some changes in this charter amendment that are neutral in nature, the majority go far beyond the original voter intent. For that reason, I'm voting no on this item.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman. I do want to thank you and all co-sponsors on this legislation for the work that you have done. I do appreciate the effort of accepting the amendments at Ruth's committee. Therefore, while I appreciate that work, though, I am not going to be voting in support, not because I don't appreciate the work that's being done. It's just simply because I think the overall idea of eliminating some of these advisory bodies and commission is, in my opinion, not in the best interest of the city. So I totally just think that it's based on principle, but I appreciate the effort nonetheless. Thank you.

Please call the roll on this item.

On item seven, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, no. Supervisor Chen. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are nine ayes and two nos, with Supervisors Chan and Fielder voting no.

And the charter amendment is ordered submitted. Madam Clerk, please call item number eight.

Item 8, this is a charter amendment second draft to amend the charter of the city and county to increase the amount of funding the city must appropriate to the housing trust fund each fiscal year that is used for the creation, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for down payment loans and housing stabilization for certain households and for housing related infrastructure. to provide for a temporary freeze and temporary reduction in the annual appropriation to the Housing Trust Fund under certain circumstances to extend the sunset date of the Housing Trust Fund from July 1, 2043 to July 1, 2058, and to delete obsolete provisions at any election to be held on November 3, 2026.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I am so excited for the opportunity to send this measure to the ballot today and ask for your support. It will secure a steady source of funding for affordable housing and preservation through the expansion and the extension of the existing housing trust fund. to eventually reach $125 million by dedicating a portion of future growth of property values in San Francisco. This is important because it is not just more money, which we desperately need for affordable housing, but the way the money behaves is different than the way that we had it before. This will provide the ability to bond against it because it is based on the valuation certification of the assessor that must be submitted to the state every year. So we can predict the way it's going to grow and we can borrow against it, thereby tripling our ability to produce affordable housing and giving the affordable housing nonprofits who build an ability to plan. to plan for their capacity, their staffing, and what they have in the pipeline ahead, and most importantly, their cash flow. This proposed charter amendment involved a diverse coalition of partners, and it was important that the expansion of the Housing Trust Fund was done in a way that was incremental, fiscally responsible, given the budget challenges that we have faced in the last couple years. And at the same time, that we reach the funding amount that will allow the city to make this useful and to bond and maximize the number of units that can be built. I recognize that voters will have a lot to contend with in the November ballot, but I cannot stress enough how dire the need is for this funding. both in terms of the necessity that we have to create affordable housing, given our commitments of the state and our residents, but also the state of our nonprofit housing organizations, our partners, who are facing a fiscal cliff in 2029 if we don't do something about the situation i want to thank all of my co-sponsors and i want to thank mayor lurie for his support along with the staff who worked on this ned siegel ali bondy ben white lee lutensky and jacob bintliff Director Dan Adams, Controller Greg Wagner and his team, Assessor Recorder Joaquin Torres and his team, Victoria Wong, Brad Rusty, and Keith Nagayama at the City Attorney, and of course, our community partners, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, Quentin Mackey, Caroline Feng, the Community Land Trust, Aki Bailey, and Kyle Smiley. Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, and especially Bill Barnes, the Housing Accelerator Fund, Rebecca Foster and Kate Hartley, the Mission Economic Development Agency, Chinatown Community Development Center, Malcolm Young, especially Eric Tao at Todco, Mercy Housing, Mission Housing, Episcopal Community Services, Self-Help for the Elderly, Ping Yun Resident Improvement Association, Firefighters Local 798, Building and Construction Trades Council, Carpenters Union Local 22, and many more. Thank you very much, colleagues.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, President Mendelman. I do just want to state on the record that I think it is arbitrary to extend the Housing Trust Fund and increase the Housing Trust Fund and at the very same meeting vote to decrease occlusionary housing. To me, this makes no sense, but I am going to support this because I do believe that this is necessary, but to do this in the very same agenda, support decreasing inclusionary housing, makes absolutely no sense. Thank you, President Mandelman.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I'm proud to co-sponsor this measure. Thank you to Supervisor Malgar and her office for their leadership and hard work on this and bringing people together. We all agree that San Francisco needs to build more housing, but as we work to make it easier to build, we also need to make sure that working families, seniors, and young people can afford to remain part of our city. The Housing Trust Fund has helped create and preserve affordable homes and supported opportunities for first-time homebuyers. This measure will strengthen that fund over time while including reasonable protections when the city faces a serious budget shortfall. This is a balanced approach. It supports more housing production while making a long-term commitment to affordability and neighborhood stability. Housing costs are pushing too many people out of San Francisco. We need to give voters the opportunity to invest in a city where people of different incomes can still build a life. Thank you.

All right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on this item.

On item nine. Eight. Excuse me, Mr. President. On item eight, Supervisor Sautter. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the charter amendment is ordered submitted. Madam Clerk, please call item number nine.

Item nine, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to increase the minimum grant award amount requiring board approval for acceptance and expenditure from $100,000 to the greater of $1 million, or the federal single audit threshold amount set by the United States Office of Management and Budget starting October 1, 2026, to require board approval of a grant increase only if it raises the grant to the approval threshold for the first time or increases a previously approved grant either 110% or more of the previously approved amount of $200,000.

Colleagues, let's take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 10.

Item 10, pursuant to Charter Section 88.422, this matter requires a vote of three-fourths or nine members of the full Board of Supervisors to approve this passage of the ordinance on first reading. Item 10 is an ordinance to approve health service system plans and contribution rates for calendar year 2027.

And I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call Items 11 through 13 together.

Items 11 through 13 are three resolutions that authorize the Port of San Francisco to accept and expend two grants and retroactively execute a contract amendment. Item 11 authorizes the accept an expenditure of $4 million. From the Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, to fund the Mission Bay Ferry Landing Project, May 1, 2026 through March 31, 2028. Item 12, retroactively authorizes the port to execute an amendment, the sixth amendment, to a professional services contract. COWI forward slash OLMM joint venture for architectural and engineering services for the Mission Bay Ferry Landing project to extend the contract term retroactively from June 16, 2026 for a total term of January 3, 2017 to June 30, 2028 with no changes to the contract amount of $6.4 million. And for item 13, this resolution authorizes the port to accept and expend a $4.5 million grant from the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to fund the Mission Bay Ferry landing project July 15, 2026 through September 30, 2028.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. And please call items 14 and 15 together.

Items 14 and 15 are two resolutions that approve airport agreements. Item 14 approves the Harvey Milk Terminal 1 and Terminal 3 Travelers Retreat between Hotel Zoo LLC as tenant and the city for a 12-year term and a minimum annual guarantee of $350,000. And item 15, approves the lease termination agreement for the Terminal 2 casual dining, food, and beverage concession, lease 6, between SSP America, Inc. as tenant and the city, acting by and through its airport commission as landlord.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call Items 16 and 17 together.

Item 16 and 17 are two resolutions that authorize the Office of the District Attorney to accept and expend two grants. Item 16 is for an approximate $91,000 grant, terms July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. And $91,000 for the term July 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028. And $91,000 for the term of July 1, 2028 through June 30, 2029. For an amount of $275,000 from the California Victim Compensation Board for a grant term of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029 to continue the criminal restitution compact should the parties agree to an amendment as allowed under the provisions of the grant agreement. And for item 17, this is from the Chris Larson Fund $200,000 gift facilitated by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation through Five Keys to support a women's initiative project to restore women's housing for victims of crime geared towards servicing families of violent crime for the purpose of public safety prevention efforts.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item number 18.

Item 18, this is a resolution to authorize the Recreation and Park Department to enter into an agreement with the San Francisco Downtown Development Corporation. pertaining to potential improvements and renovations at the Embarcadero Plaza and the Sue Bierman Park, and to accept cash grants of approximately $20 million for the project for the term starting on the execution of the date of the agreement through December 2028.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Please call item 19.

Item 19, resolution to retroactively authorize the Department of Public Health to accept and expend 87,000 in-kind gift of wastewater analysis services from Biobot Analytics in support of the Department of Public Health for the term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Please call item 20.

Item 20, resolution to authorize the issuance and sale from time to time of bonds of the San Francisco Unified School District prescribing the terms of the sale of $270 million of said general obligation bonds. Election of 2024 series B, authorizing sale of said GO bonds by negotiated sale and approving the form of the bond purchase agreement to approve the forms of one or more paying agent agreements. and authorizing the execution of necessary documents and certificates relating to such bonds.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Please call item 21.

Item 21 is a motion to direct the budget and legislative analyst to initiate a performance and management audit in collaboration with the Controller's Office of the Academy of Sciences in fiscal year 2026 through 2027. Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman, colleagues. Of course, thank you so much to the... My apologies.

Next one? Next one.

I jumped the gun.

I jumped the shot. Then I think going back to 21, we will take 21, same house, same call. Without objection, the motion is approved. And then, Madam Clerk, you will please call items 22 through 37 together. And then we will allow our budget chair to talk to us. OK. Please call items 22 through 37 together.

Items 22 through 37 comprise the city's budget pursuant to Charter Section 9.100 . The Board shall not adopt the budget earlier than July 15th nor later than August 1st. Item 22 is the budget and appropriation ordinance to appropriate estimated receipts and all expenditures for departments of the city and county of June 1st, 2026 for fiscal years ending June 30th, 2027 and June 30th, 2028. Item 23 is the annual salary ordinance, which enumerates positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance, uh, for fiscal years ending in June 30th, uh, June, uh, 2027 and June 30th, 2028, that create, continue, establish positions, enumerate, and including therein all positions created by charter, state law, for which compensations are paid from city and county funds and appropriated in the annual appropriation ordinance, to authorize appointments or continuation of appointments thereto, to specify and fix the compensations and work schedules thereof, and to authorize appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations therefore. Item 24, this ordinance amends the Administrative Code to authorize the city administrator to pause, reduce, or return the annual contributions by the departments that contract for public works under Administrative Code Chapter 6 to the San Francisco Self-Insurance Surety Fund. Item 25, this ordinance modifies the baseline funding requirements for early care and education programs in fiscal years 2026, 2027, and 2027 and 2028 to enable the city to use the interest earned from the early care and education commercial rents tax for those baseline programs. Item 26, this ordinance amends a health code to set patient rates for services provided by the Department of Public Health for fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28. Item 27, this ordinance amends the administrative code to increase certain utility meter fees and authorize the controller to annually adjust device fees for weights and measures and utility meters up to the maximum allowable under state law. Item 28, this ordinance temporarily suspends the cap on the use of homelessness gross receipts tax revenues to fund short-term rental subsidies and to find that temporarily allowing for increased expenditures on short-term rental subsidies will further the purpose of our city, our home fund. Item 29, this ordinance adopts the neighborhood beautification and graffiti cleanup fund tax designation ceiling for tax year 2026. Item 30, this resolution approves the fiscal year 2026 through 2027 budget of the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure operating as the successor agency to the redevelopment agency of the city and county and approves the issuance of bonds in an aggregate principal amount of $275 million for the purpose of financing a portion of OCII's enforceable obligations. Item 31, this resolution concurs with the controller's establishment of the consumer price index for 2026 and adjusts the access line tax by the same rate. Item 32, this resolution authorizes the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expend a $1.5 million in grants as well as in-kind gifts, services, and cash monies from the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library for direct support to the Chinatown Branch renovation capital project within the term fiscal years 2026 through 2027 through 2029, 2030. Item 33, this resolution authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of reoccurring state grant funds by the San Francisco Department of Public Health for fiscal years 2026 through 2027. Item 34, this resolution approves the fiscal years 2026-27 and 2027-28 expenditure plan for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. Item 35, this resolution concurs with the controller certification that department services previously approved can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for the following services. For budget and legislative analyst services, fleet security services, real estate division custodial services, real estate division security services, convention facilities management, for General Services Agency Administrative Services, Security Services for the Department of Public Works, Security Services for Homelessness and Supportive Housing and the Human Services Agency, Food Services at the County Jail for the Sheriff's Department, Assembly of Vote by Mail Services for the Department of Election, and Security Services for the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. Item 36, this resolution concurs with the Controller Certification that department services can be performed by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for protective services for adult probation and security services for the Department of Public Health. And for item 37, this resolution authorizes the Recreation and Park Department to issue an amended permit allowing Another Planet Entertainment to hold ticketed concerts at the Golden Gate Park polo field to take place on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday following or preceding the Outside Lands Festival in 2027, 2028, and 2029 in exchange for a minimum permit fee of $1.53 million. per year for two-day events and approximately 2.2 million per year for three-day events through 2029 and with options to extend that permit until 2035 with increased minimum permit fees during any such extension and to affirm the CEQA determination.

Chair Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman. Colleagues, as you are well aware, this is the first appearance of the budget before you. We will be casting our first vote next week on Tuesday, July 22nd, and the second vote the following. But simply today, I want to present to you the budget items with the chairing legislation that we have clerical amendments To the board spending plan and after my presentation to you for the amendments to board Spending plan that I'm going to then turn over to the mayor's budget office miss Eliza Pugh So she's going to present to you the technical adjustments provided from the mayor and so if I may that I'm going, and so collectively, I will make that motion to move these amendments. And so first from me, I'm going to read out loud, colleagues, is for item 22, and that is specifically for these boards and only for boards' spending plan. So it's the ordinance, the appropriation ordinance on page 1, line 2, adding the Agency for Human Rights, formerly Human Rights Commission, as an implementing department since they currently administer the contract for youth employment. And on page two, line 20, adding language to more accurately reflect intent. So now it reads that academic skill development, GED prep, ESL skill building, educational support services, and job training and preparedness for climate-related jobs for transitional-age youth and adults in the mission impacted by juvenile probation, foster care, child welfare involvement, language barriers, and limited access to traditional education systems. Then on page 1 and 5, lines 4, 59, 61, removing checkboxes erroneously placed in columns with the heading 1X. And now I'm going to turn this over to the Mayor's Budget Office, Ms. Eliza Pugh.

Hello. Do you all have copies? Okay, great. My name is Eliza Pugh from the Mayor's Budget Office, and I'm submitting the attached adjustment to the Mayor's proposed budget for FY27 and FY28. Technical adjustments include correcting expenditures at the Sheriff's Office, This set of technical adjustments will increase the proposed FY27 budget by $3,695,945 and will not increase the FY28 budget and results in a cost of $3,695,945 in FY27 and no cost in FY28. So over the two years, the net impact will be a general fund cost of $3 million, $695,945. The attached table on the second page details these changes. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

I don't see any questions. Chair Chan, anything further? You've made a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Chen and colleagues. Can we take that without... Oh, we can do that. We can take the amendment without objection. All right, so motion has been made, seconded, and the motion passes without objection. Okay. And then, Chair Chan, did you...

I do. And then I know that we also have to make an amendment to our city, our home spending plan. Again, also is on item 22. But there will be details that Supervisor Chen is going to walk us through on the amendments for the spending plan. So it will be second motion to also amend.

Okay. Supervisor Chen.

Okay, I'm going to speak on item number 28. Colleagues, as many of you know, I have been working with the mayor's office to negotiate a spending plan for our city, our home funds that the mayor's team, the board of supervisors, and community could all support powerfully. This year's proposal was thoughtful and carefully balanced it, but my office heard from many providers and community stakeholders concerns about the lack of additional long-term subsidies in the plan. After many conversations with providers and advocates, and partnership from the Mayor's Office, we have negotiated a modest increase of 50 long-term subsidies for families living in SRO units citywide. I want to thank Budget Chair Chan for allowing me to lead on OCO this year, and I want to recognize the work of my Legislative A, Jackie Prager, who worked diligently with all stakeholders to come to an agreement. I would like to also thank Deputy Chief Kunal Modi, his staff, Jessica Koso, Budget Director Sophia Kittler and Adam Tomsevac for their willingness to work with my office to achieve a plan that everyone can be proud of. I want to thank the providers and advocates who work with my staff to fight for more resources for our families, and I'm grateful for everyone's partnership and look forward to continuing to work with, stabilize, and support unhoused individuals in our city while improving our city's systems. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Chair Chen.

Thank you, President Mendelman. It's my mistake, colleagues. I'm rescinding that motion. There is not a need to amend the actual spending plan to reflect that because this is an agreement between Supervisor Chen directly with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing on the spending plan. They can make the adjustments on their own. And so We're done with the motions to amend. We can no longer amend.

No more amending. I mean, we can do whatever we want to, but.

Mr. President, we'll put a note in the file as to the agreement. Thank you.

Okay. Great. So thank you, Chair Chan, for getting us through this year's budget process as you have the last four.

Four?

Four. And so we cannot act on the budget until July 15th. So can I have a motion to continue these matters until the July 21st, 2026 board meeting, moved by Chen, seconded by Dorsey. And I think we can take that without objection. Without objection, the budget is continued to, and all of these items are continued to July 21st, 2026. Madam Clerk, please call item 38.

Item 38, this is an ordinance to amend the Business and Tax Regulations Code to extend the waiver of certain first-year permit, license, and business registration fees for specified small businesses that newly form or that open a new location under the earlier of July 1, 2027, or the date on which all funds appropriated to reimburse departments for the waived fees have been expended.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading.

Now please call item 39 Item 39 this is an ordinance to amend the Planning Code to reduce inclusionary affordable housing program requirements for projects of 25 units or more to delete inclusionary affordable housing program requirements for projects under 25 units to allow all projects to dedicate land to the city as an alternative to payment of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program fee, to adopt a process for projects to request a modification to conditions of approval related to Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program requirements, to delete certain Article IV affordable housing and development impact fees, and to adopt conforming amendments to various sections of the Planning Code, to amend the Building Code to reduce Planning Code Article IV development impact fees, and allow deferral of payments of such fees, and to amend the Administrative Code to adopt conforming amendments to the requirements of the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, and to affirm the secret determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, as I discussed at GAO Committee, I'm concerned about the impact of this ordinance on the decades-long, careful, and intentional planning that is focused on the Mission District. The Mission Area Plan is not a generic part of San Francisco. It is among the most studied, most contested, and most intentionally planned areas in the city's recent history. Treating it the same as the rest of the city within the on-site inclusionary percentages ignores everything that our planning processes were built to protect. The Mission has a unique planning history. The Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning and the Mission Area Plan were the product of years of community-based planning, explicitly designed to respond to displacement pressure on Latino residents, small businesses, and light industrial, or PDR, uses in the Mission. The city already recognizes this. This ordinance itself carves out a higher off-site and in-lieu rate for the mission, proof that planning and the city already treat this area as distinct when it comes to value capture. The on-site rate should reflect that same distinction, not default to the citywide number. The pressures that justify this special treatment haven't gone away. The mission remains one of the highest displacement risk neighborhoods in San Francisco by the city's own equity mapping. And here I'm referring to the Priority Equity Geography's SUD and the Mission Action Plan's 2020 and 2030. Lowering the on-site requirement to a city-wide generic 5% breaks the original bargain without revisiting the density and height benefits that developers still receive in this district. If anything, continued development pressure on the mission strengthens the case for holding the line on that commitment, not weakening it. With all of that said, I'm introducing amendments to require an 8% on-site inclusionary rate in the mission area plan with 6% at low income and 2% at moderate income for rental and ownership units. These figures are still well below the current rates of 17% on-site inclusionary rate for the mission and just a bit higher than the new proposed citywide on-site rate of 5%. Recognizing the intensive planning process that shaped affordability requirements in this area, the displacement pressures this area still faces, and the same standard already applied to off-site and in-lieu fees here. My staff distributed the amendments earlier today. Unfortunately, they were not ready for committee, so I'm introducing here today. The City Attorney's Office has confirmed that these are not substantive and will not delay the passage of this legislation. So colleagues, I ask for your support, and with that, I would like to make a motion to adopt the amendments on pages 53 through 55 that I just described, requiring an 8% on-site inclusionary rate in the Mission Area Plan, with 6% at low income and 2% at moderate income for rental and ownership units. The remaining amendments at pages 55, 58, and 60 solely update the section numbers. Thank you, President Mandelman. Second.

Supervisor Fielder has made a motion, and Supervisor Melgar has seconded it. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, President Mandelman. I was happy to support this legislation committee, and I'm happy to support it here for final passage as well. It was abundantly clear from the technical advisory committee report that we need to do all that we can to move the needle on feasibility if we want to have any chance as a city to build the housing required to meet demand. The increase in the threshold for inclusionary fees from 10 units to 25 units in particular will help with the exact kind of midsize projects encouraged by the family zoning plan. When paired with the housing trust fund expansion that Supervisor Melgar has proposed, these policies go a long way in helping us meet our production goals around subsidized affordable housing while also stemming the tide of rising rents for residents on the open market. As was noted, this was done as an exchange, a recommendation by the TAC between the housing trust fund and inclusionary requirements. and had amendments move forward to actually couple those measures, I was supportive. As for Supervisor Fielder's amendment, I will also be voting in support. We as a board should respect Supervisor prerogative and I trust her to know how to balance her shared priority policy goals with the feedback that she is getting from her constituents in the mission. The new rates are still a reduction from the current baseline and will encourage more affordable housing that is being built as a result of the inclusionary requirement to be built in the mission, representing the opportunity for residents who want to leave substandard or overcrowded conditions, but don't want to leave the neighborhood. I appreciate that this amendment reflects the conversations that Supervisor Fielder has had with mission residents about how to advance affordable housing in their neighborhood, and I'm happy to support it.

Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much, President Mandelman. I wanted to explain my co-sponsorship of this item and address a couple of concerns that have come up from some of my colleagues and members of the public. For non-housing nerds, the way we set the inclusionary rate in San Francisco is the same as the rest of California. It has to be based on a NEXA study. This is since the Palmer decision many years ago. And the NEXA study really just is a calculation that looks like how much it costs to build a unit and how much a family of low income can afford. And as costs go up, that gets wider, that gap gets wider, and our inclusionary fee gets lower. And when costs shrink, when it costs less to build a unit, that means that the gap gets smaller, we don't have to subsidize as much, and then we can get more for our money. So the way that we do it in San Francisco is we appoint a bunch of experts. We, the Board of Supervisors, appoint the Technical Advisory Committee, and it's a science. They crunch the numbers, but it's also a little bit of art because we get nonprofit developers, for-profit developers, They get in a room, they look at the numbers, and they negotiate. And we are required to do this every three years because the market changes, right? The costs go up and they go down. The area median income consistently has gone up, but, you know, when times are booming, the median income gets skewed by people making lots of money. So those, that formula, that sort of science part of the numbers, And every three years, the people in the technical advisory committee get together, they crunch the numbers, and they come up with the recommendation that we then vote on. But we can vote on it at any time. We just have this backup that is not just good practice. It is legally required. And if we don't do it, if we ignore that gap that is in the market, it risks the integrity, the legal integrity of the entire program, not just right now when the market is fluctuating, but permanently for our city. So I just want to make sure that we understand that because we have to do it. So now as it relates to the housing trust fund, Because we set the inclusionary rate every three years, we are also putting together the Housing Trust Fund for 30 years. It is a 30-year commitment that is permanent, 30 years, versus a three-year resetting of the fee based on the market. So what has happened, if we look back at the last three years, is that 0% of zero is zero. In the past three years, we have gotten zero in inclusionary fees. This past year, we actually got less than that. We got $137,000 or some less, because somebody asked for their money back. They had put in. They had said, I'm going to build. And then they changed their mind. Never mind. So they can ask for their money back, because that's the way we wrote the law. So what are we really giving up in exchange for a 30-year permanent source of funding that allows us to invest in affordable housing, given that the past three years we've been at zero and at zero BMR units? So I just want to point out that 5% of 100 is five, and it's more than zero. So we are hoping that in the next three years, despite the tariffs costing us higher gas prices, higher prices for good, more inflation, we now have the highest inflation of all G7 countries, by the way. We can do nothing about it, but we can do something about this. It's one of the cost factors for building housing. So we are hoping that this will incentivize market rate housing being built in the zones that we have just allowed in areas that now will have room for rental housing. I think that would be a good thing. It will create jobs. It will create needed housing that we have committed to the state. And the action that we just took will also provide financing for affordable housing, which is half of our obligation to the state in terms of the production of units. So I just wanted to explain my thinking in putting my name on this. I don't love lowering the inclusionary percentage. I fought for it. I fought for the program. I wrote a lot of the policies and procedures of the program. But this is the moment that we're in right now. And it is a temporary moment. So in three years, when our economy recovers, when we no longer have a Republican president that is making everything more expensive in our country, and things go back up, I have every expectation that the inclusionary rate will be reset higher by a future body of the Board of Supervisors, and that will sit on top of the housing trust fund that has been expanded so that we have both. And so I wanted to just explain that and ask for your support for this. I think it makes sense at this moment. It is a trade-off, but the math supports it. Thank you.

Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, I will respectfully be voting no on the proposed amendment. While we ultimately have the final policy decision over our inclusionary rates, we generally entrust the bulk of the policy making work on our inclusionary rates to a group of experts from the development and affordable housing community. They look at the data and provide us with recommendations as Land Use Chair Malgar just explained. And this time around the numbers showed that our rates are too high. And in fact the report showed that even zero is infeasible. While I frankly have reservations even about 5%, I respect the process that led to that recommendation. And I understand the desire and the importance of having a number that's greater than zero. But I do believe we need to trust the math. I don't believe we should single out neighborhoods and freeze them out for new housing, market rate or affordable. It takes time to see the effects of these changes and that's why the tack process happens every three years I believe we need to make let this policy play out So I will respectfully not support the amendment on the principle that it risks moving the legislation further from its goal of making housing production feasible Supervisor Chen

Thank you, Board President. Carly, in the face of widening inequity and the historic and ongoing displacement of working class communities and communities of color, the city faces an extraordinary imperative to facilitate housing opportunity. This includes permitting more housing, facilitating its construction, ensuring affordability, and preventing further displacement. I want to support developers, to produce new housing, and I want to maximize our affordable housing. And that's why I have serious concerns about this legislation. It requires us to choose one over the other, rather than advance both collectively. It is really a sad day where affordable housing requirements are reframed as obstacles to production rather than prerequisites for it. If we believe that a more affordable San Francisco is our goal, then we must recognize that affordable housing is part of the cost of doing business for new development. What I hear from proponents of this legislation is that it gets shuffles in the ground. However, I'm not convinced it. A BLA analysis conducted in May of this year found that previous reduction did not resolve in significant impact on housing productions. The Technical Advisory Committee's own report confirms that there is no rate of incursionary housing that is feasible under current market condition. And both analysis confirm that macroeconomic factors such as labor, materials, and financing causes are the real drivers of development activity. I understand that this legislation is part of a package, but placing the Affordable Housing Trust Fund on the ballot and approving it are two very different things. There's no guarantee that the funding will be approved. This is an unnecessary leap of faith, and I believe it is dishonest to advance this legislation without the guarantee that the funding will be dedicated. I want to acknowledge that the inclusionary framework, it's also about something much bigger, that it's at the heart of San Francisco we care so much about. The goal of inclusionary was simple, to ensure that new development did not continue to echo the racism and exclusion of historic development patterns. Inclusionary requirements are the single most important tool to foster mixed income communities. Without it, we facilitate a San Francisco that only becomes further segregated. and I would not be supporting this legislation in its current form, but I do want to speak to support Supervisor Fielder's amendment, and I think in the Mission District, remains one of the highest displacement risk area, and this principle already exists in the legislation with high off-site and fee rates in priority equity communities, and this neighborhood specifically, Taring is just relevant for their actual inclusionary rate. Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you. President Mendelman, I am a firm believer that in the supply of demand is that we need the supply of affordable housing, because we are demanding affordable housing, or really housing that people can afford, and that's what we have to build. Lowering the inclusionary requirements Once more, we actually did this two years ago. We have some parameters for it. That's including lowering the inclusionary percentage for the project that's already currently in the pipeline. It seems like it wasn't clearly with the budget and legislative analysis report that we recently commissioned had indicated to us that lowering the inclusionary percentage isn't the major factor. It's some factor. It provides some incentive. So overall, I am not inclined to, again, to lower it. But I am, again, also inclined to support Supervisor Fielder's suggestions identifying and recognizing that mission has the greatest gentrification, a rate of gentrification and displacement, and would like to increase it, I will only be voting in support the entire legislation should Supervisor Fielder's amendment is adopted. So in another word, I will not be voting in support The legislation is currently at 6% for low income and 2% for the moderate income for rental and ownership. But I will be then voting in support of it should this body adopt Supervisor Fielder's proposed amendments requiring 8% onsite in the mission area plan area. Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, San Francisco is in a housing production crisis. Over the past several years, construction costs have climbed, interest rates have increased, financing has become more difficult, and housing production has slowed dramatically. The city's own technical advisory committee concluded that our existing inclusionary requirements have become a significant barrier to new residential development under today's economic conditions. We cannot collect affordable housing fees from projects that are never built. We cannot require below market rate units in buildings that never leave the drawing board. This legislation recognizes today's economic reality while preserving our long-term commitment to affordable housing. It adjusts inclusionary requirements, reduces certain impact fees, and provides greater flexibility so projects can once again pencil out and move forward. It also maintains the city's commitment to revisit these requirements through the technical advisory committee as market conditions change. Good housing policy requires us to be principled, but it also requires us to be pragmatic and responsible. If we want more affordable housing tomorrow, we need more housing today. This ordinance helps put San Francisco back on that path. Thank you. And did you want to speak, Supervisor Malheur?

All right, if nobody else is in the queue, I will just weigh in with a couple reflections. When I was young, when I was in grad school, The conversation about impact fees was very much about the ways in which those fees could make development pay for itself in a post-Prop 13 world where local governments would not otherwise over time be able to collect the property tax they needed to provide the amenities that would be needed for the new housing. In the subsequent 500 years since I was in grad school, the circumstances in California have changed and we have a colossal shortage of housing that is crushing, uh, that is crushing our residents and is bad for our economy is bad for our people. Um, and so I have been persuaded that the good of getting more housing is worth the harm of reducing our impact fees. And I take seriously the point that Supervisor Melgar has made and that a lot of people have made, which is that a larger percentage of zero is still zero. Now, I do think that since the tax analysis shows that the 5% does not create feasible projects, I'm not inclined to support a rate that is higher than that, even for a neighborhood that is very special and has a history of displacement. Um, so that, that is my, those are my thoughts. Um, Madam Clerk, could you call the roll on the amendment?

On the amendment to item 39, Supervisor Sautter. Sautter, no. Supervisor Sherrill? No. Sherrill, no. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Wong, no. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, no. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman?

No.

Mandelman, no. And Supervisor Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, aye. There are six ayes and five nos with Supervisors Sautter, Cheryl Wong, Dorsey, and Mandelman voting no.

And the motion passes. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item?

On item 39, as amended, Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton? Aye. Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinance is passed on first reading. But was that a, did I need to, do you want to rescind the vote?

Can we rescind the vote?

How do we do this, Madam Clerk? Yes, motion to rescind the vote.

Need a second. Six votes will rescind the vote.

Great. There's been a motion to rescind the vote. It has been seconded by Supervisor Chan. Can we take that without objection? Without objection, the motion passes. All right. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item again?

On item 39, as amended, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton. No. Wolton, no. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Aye. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman I and supervisor Melgar Melgar I there are ten eyes and one no with supervisor Walton voting no and The ordinance is passed on first reading Madam clerk, please call item 40 item 40. This is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination for the reappointment of as as Alina you sup Forgive my pronunciation if I'm pronouncing it incorrectly to the Sanitation and Streets Commission term ending July 1st 2030

Please call the roll.

On item 40, Supervisor Sautter. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton. Aye. Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the motion is approved. And Madam Clerk, let's go to our committee reports. Please call item number 41.

Yes, but I'll first state items 41 and 42 were considered by the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee at a regular meeting on Thursday, July 9th, and both were forwarded as committee reports. Item 41, this item was recommended as amended but with the same title. It reads ordinance to amend the administrative code to state that it is city policy to expand the availability of site-based permanent supportive housing that prohibits on-site illicit drug use among residents to meet the demand of people experiencing homelessness who prefer such a residential option to require that the city funding for new site-based PSH for people experiencing homelessness be used for drug-free PSH, except where operation of the housing as drug-free PSH would conflict with standards imposed by law or by a condition of other funding where the funding is for new construction, or the Board has waived the funding requirement based on specific findings to require the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing to survey residents of site-based PSH to assess their interest in living in either drug-tolerant PSH or drug-free PSH, and to report on the survey findings and HSH's strategies to meet PSH residents' demands, and to require HSH to adopt rules and regulations establishing standards and protocols for evictions from city-funded drug-free housing.

Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, as you probably know, this legislation has been a work in progress and a labor of love of mine for more than two years now. I want to thank all my co-sponsors, especially Board President Mandelman, who has been an original thought partner from the start. I assume I speak for all of my co-sponsors when I acknowledge how worthwhile it has been to demonstrate an abundance of collaboration, even if it took a lot longer. In an evolving policy landscape at the state and federal levels, we have honored all good faith requests to find common ground with advocates wherever possible. I'm proud of the way we worked collaboratively with various interests, colleagues, HSH, the mayor's office, and both the Breed and Lurie administrations. While there was probably never a scenario to win unanimous support for this, I think we forged a better legislative proposal, one that will make much needed, if modest, progress on drug-free PSH obserns for those who choose them. This legislation is an incremental approach. It ensures that only new city-funded permanent supportive housing will prohibit illicit drug use on site. It will not affect state-funded PSH. It will not apply to new construction currently in the pipeline. And it will not change a single existing drug-tolerant PSH building or model. The drug-free lease provision we're proposing to add is legally identical to all standard residential leases here in California, the same leases that already cover more than 240,000 San Franciscans who don't live in permanent supportive housing. This is not sober housing. It is not recovery housing. It does not prohibit alcohol or marijuana or medically assisted treatment. I also want to be clear about whom this legislation is for. It responds to real needs of PSH residents themselves, people who may or may not be in recovery, but who simply want to live in a drug-free residential community. Families, seniors, and others, people who deserve the choice of a drug-free option for any reason that covers all other residential tenants in San Francisco. With one exception, and that's a 42 unit site at 1174 Folsom Street in my district, we currently have no drug free PSH options in our city funded system. This legislation at its core is about giving PSH residents a choice. Importantly, residents who may choose drug-free PSH are making an intentional choice, one they would be opting into a community as with an illicit drug-free rule and making a commitment to abide by it. That intentionality is the foundation that this policy is built on. It's about respecting the choices of PSH residents themselves and also along with that honoring that the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing will have a need to manage and enforce it. Based on what we have seen at 1174 Folsom and what we've also learned from drug-free PSH providers in the state of Oregon, we should expect evictions under this ordinance to be exceedingly rare. The self-selection of residents who voluntarily opt into drug-free residential communities largely solves in advance for scenarios that involve persistent drug relapses or habitual returns to use. Still, even though they may be very rare, edge case scenarios exist and this legislation must address them given that relocations may be necessary to protect the integrity of drug-free residential communities. No resident of drug-free PSH will ever be evicted for a single relapse. And critically, we've built a robust process in this legislation that requires HSH to offer alternative housing or shelter together with services before an eviction can even take place. Finally, this ordinance provides for a participatory and inclusive rulemaking process. Colleagues and advocates will have ample opportunity to help shape rules and policies that best serve residents as this legislation is implemented. Now, having said that, I am aware that there is interest from colleagues in amendments, and I am on board with one that will further commit this legislation to the goal of avoiding evictions. And accordingly, I would like to move an amendment to add evictions and to page 8, line 24, so that that subsection now reads, Three, in collaboration with the Department of Public Health, making a good faith effort to accommodate such residents' housing and service needs when identifying alternative placements with the goal of avoiding evictions and returns to homelessness. Now, it's also my understanding that there is interest in an additional amendment that would remove shelters as a relocation option. I will respectfully not be supporting that amendment, and although I'm not philosophically opposed to it, after consulting with the mayor's policy director, Kunal Modi, who's been working closely with HSH on how this legislation would be administered and enforced if enacted, I'm told that removing shelters as a relocation option could risk sabotaging HSH's ability to maintain the integrity of a drug-free community. That obviously would run counter to the core intent of this legislation. In the event that a comparable unit is not available, I believe we need to have the option of shelter. That's what HSH and Mr. Modi have informed me. Keeping all option open for these edge cases will help to serve our shared goal of avoiding returns to homelessness. As a policy maker, I think we should be sensitive to not being overly prescriptive in how we legislate to avoid setting our departments up for failure. I want to give HSH the flexibility it needs to make drug free housing successful. I am confident that the specifics on housing offers, evictions, and broader program components can be addressed in the rulemaking process. I have spoken with the incoming HSH director, Mike Levine, and he has assured me that the rulemaking process will be participatory and inclusive as this legislative process has been. So I do want to thank the leaders, organizations, and academics who supported this legislation. Two of them are giants in the drug policy realm, Keith Humphries, who served as President Obama's White House advisor, Anna Lemke, who serves as director of addiction medicine at Stanford. Thanks as well to my brothers and sisters from the recovery community, especially recovery community advocates, Therese Coates and Richard Beale, who are co-founders of Brothers Against Drugs. Similarly, Cedric Akbar, Steve Adami, Tom Wolfe, Brandon Clark, Amber Richmond, among others. Positive Directions Equals Change, Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths, The Salvation Army, Bay Area Council, and the American Addiction Recovery Association, especially Merrick Fitro, who is a member of its Board of Governors. And with that, I want to thank all my colleagues. Thank you for hearing me out and working with me on this. I hope to have your support on the amendment and also on the legislation.

Supervisor Dorsey has made a motion to amend the legislation. It has been seconded by Supervisor Sherrill. Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Mandelman. Colleagues, firstly, I just want to say I do believe in having more abstinent or sober housing as an option for unhoused people who are in recovery from substance use disorder. So I support that spirit of the legislation, and I support the provision of this legislation that I think smartly administers a survey of permanent supportive housing residents, the aim of which is to assess their interest in abstinent housing. For that, I thank Supervisor Dorsey for taking on this work. However, I just first want to say I think the terminology in this legislation is problematic. I'm not sure how bifurcating permanent housing into drug-tolerant versus drug-free housing passed review with the city attorney's office as this kind of framing, I would think, puts a litigation target on the city's back. And the term drug-tolerant housing suggests that the city allows people to openly use drugs in city-funded permanent supportive housing, and that's just not the case. Less legally risky and, to me, less stigmatizing terminology would be abstinent or sober housing and low barrier housing. I also appreciate Supervisor Dorsey for adding an amendment clarifying the goal of this legislation is to avoid evictions. However, I fear that the legislation before us, as written, lacks strong protocols for providing support to residents facing eviction from abstinent housing and will have the unintended consequence of actually driving up homelessness and therefore drug use on our streets. Getting people into permanently supportive housing takes a tremendous amount of city effort in the first place. The legislation as written allows for someone to be evicted from sober housing to a shelter. That is not going to provide someone in recovery stability. Research shows that relapse is a part of recovery as much as six times before they get sober, which is why upon second relapse, people should be offered the option for treatment, and if they participate in treatment, be able to return to their unit. Shelter is not housing. Shelter is a rough place for someone struggling with substance use order to be. A person is not considered housed when they're in shelter. They're still considered homeless. I also think it is feasible for the city to provide and relocate someone to comparable alternative housing. As of right now, today, San Francisco has 762 vacant permanent supportive housing units out of its inventory of over 9,163 units. Of these empty units, 322 are currently undergoing the move-in process. 345 are offline for maintenance or repairs, and a whole 95 are fully ready for immediate tenant referrals. I appreciate all the work that's been put into this legislation to minimize the legislation's impact on evictions, but I still think it doesn't provide enough policy direction to ensure that people will not be evicted back to shelters and therefore into housing instability. For this reason, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the following amendments that my staff distributed earlier today. City Attorney's Office has confirmed these are non-substantive and will not delay the passage of this legislation. The amendments are as follows. Page 4, line 19, for relocation to another option, striking out or shelter. On page 8, lines 12 and 13, confirmation from HHS that the resident has been offered comparable alternative housing, striking out, or shelter to ensure that they are not evicted into homelessness. And page 8, line 19, offering such residents appropriate alternative housing, striking out shelter, placement, or a pathway to housing prior to program discharge or eviction. Colleagues, I would appreciate your support.

Supervisor Fielder has made a motion. Is there a second for seconded by Melgar? Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much. I wanted to start my remarks by thanking Supervisor Dorsey. When you first spoke to me about this legislation, that was over a year ago. You've been at this for a really long time. And this legislation actually has really moved. So I wanted to, first of all, thank you for your engagement and for incorporating my feedback and the feedback of others in the community. And I know that it took a lot of head and heart for you to do that, and I just want to appreciate you for that. I am uncomfortable in some of the similar ways as were described by Supervisor Fielder. And I think that I can get over my discomfort of words, especially if our city attorney is vouching for this. I assume they did, because it's approved as the form. And I want to appreciate your passion to provide services and alternatives for this population. However, I do want to strongly make a pitch to support Supervisor Fielder's amendments as proposed. I think we are trying to try out something new. And I think that whenever you try something new, you're building a lot of things and assumptions and frameworks from scratch. In putting this forward, we are putting forward a new policy. And I think it's entirely appropriate even if the department wants maximum flexibility for us to say, but these are the parameters. This is what we don't want to happen. We don't want somebody who doesn't have the linear progression of being sober, falls off the wagon a couple times, to have to go back to square one and have to start in the coordinated entry system at shelter because, as my colleague Supervisor Fielder described, it's not a good place to be, especially if you're in crisis. And so we all know that we have hundreds of units in permanent supportive housing that are vacant. I think that setting a parameter for the department is appropriate. I will say I had a recent experience with the department with the RV program, which was mostly successful. And there has been hiccups on the one-offs, people who don't quite fit or fell through the cracks in the outreach. And so I do think that it is appropriate to sort of put that parameter and say, this is what we would like to see. And I think Supervisor Fielder's amendments do speak to that. Thank you so much for preparing them, Supervisor Fielder. And then, again, thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for the work and passion that you have put into this.

Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Mandelman. I do want to address the terminology around drug-tolerant as distinct from drug-free and explain why. Throughout this process, I have consistently identified this as a hill I would absolutely die on. Those of us in the policymaking realm can sometimes adopt terms of art that we understand without fully appreciating that these euphemisms and slogans hold no intrinsic or intuitive meaning for the people they're designed to serve. There is nothing about terms like housing first or traditional PSH or low barrier or harm reduction housing that could reasonably or intuitively be expected to mean drug tolerant even though that's exactly what the law means. I want to read from California law here. This is welfare and institutions code section 8255. This is where the core components of housing first mandate the following lease provisions and permanent supportive housing for state funded PSH. Quote, the use of alcohol or drugs in and of itself without other lease violations is not a reason for eviction. Services are informed by a harm reduction philosophy that recognizes drug use and addiction as part of tenants' lives. And it prescribes that support for residents who engage in illicit drug use to be non-judgmental communication in which tenants are offered education on how to engage in safer practices. I have no objections to that, but by any definition, these provisions are drug tolerant. They're also wholly unique to PSH residents. These are not lease provisions found in any other residential lease in San Francisco or in California for that matter. You know, there are professional standards around public health communications including in the AMA's code of medical ethics that caution against the use of euphemisms and slogans when it masks information that is important and meaningful to those being served. And I think it is the height of policymaking arrogance, frankly, to assume that individuals exiting homelessness into PSH should be expected to know that the euphemism housing first means drug tolerant, even though that information may mean everything to the health and well-being of the resident we're endeavoring to serve. I had a constituent named Daniel McLennan. Daniel is a talented artist, a former PSH resident on 6th Street in my district. Some of you may have met him or recall him because he testified in favor of Assemblymember Matt Haney's legislation in Sacramento to reform Housing First at the state level. Daniel is also a recovering opioid addict. Here is somebody who's literally fighting for his life on medication assisted treatment and we placed him into a housing first environment with no forewarning of how drug tolerant and chaotic the environment we were putting him into was. It was very nearly catastrophic to his well-being. It broke my heart to hear him say how damaging his living environment was to his mental health and his sobriety. He told me that if he didn't have responsibility for a dog, he would rather be on the street because it would have been better for his mental health. The good news is that Daniel just celebrated one year of continuous sobriety, but he had to do it in Fresno. I have another constituent who's also in recovery for alcohol. She is a mother of three children who told me she had no idea that the facility we moved her family into, this is the Margo in my district, would have such rampant drug use. She told me that after doing everything she could to rescue her kids from the trauma of unsheltered homelessness, they were being re-traumatized by fatal overdoses happening all around them. She worked with my office to get relocated, but for a mother of three small children in recovery herself, information about the drug-tolerant policies she would be living in would have been good information for her to have in advance. She has since moved to another facility where there is more separation between families and habitual drug users, but it really has been a challenge for her and her family, and she strongly supports a drug-free alternative. Both of these constituents, among many other brothers and sisters in recovery, inspired this legislation. But they're also abiding examples of why PSH residents deserve the courtesy of clear, accurate terminology and not misleading euphemisms about drug policies where they reside. This is important to their sobriety and in many ways, by extension, important to their very survival. And that was why this is such an important policy that I think we describe it accurately. Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President. First, I also would like to acknowledge Supervisor Dorsey and the work that he and his team have put into this legislation. I recognize that he has spent a lot of time working on amendments to try to alleviate concerns from different stakeholders. I want to say that on the record that I am very supportive of sober housing solutions. At the same time, I do have some concerns about this legislation. I don't believe that our city should be implementing sober housing environments in a way that could cause harm to those who cannot live successfully in that environment. Sober housing solutions should not come at the risk of making some people housing insecure. Given the affordability crisis facing in the city, coupled it with the fact that we are actively trying to create more flow through the PSH system, And I'm worried that adding new barrier will be counterintuitive to our long-term goals. Again, I'm very appreciative of all the good faith and good work that you and the care that you put in, Supervisor Dorsey, and also your team, and also all the different stakeholders on this legislation. And I also would... I'd like to say that I am supportive of Supervisor Field's amendment, and if her amendment passes, then I will also be then willing and able to support this legislation. Thank you.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you. Yes, I am in agreement and share the sentiment that thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, I think that it does take a lot of effort for the city to have alternatives. And I think that when Director Dan Tsai actually was appointed to his position, one of the questions was asked specifically about how do we really problem solve the fentanyl crisis in San Francisco. And I really appreciate his answer at that moment. And I think that that is where my approach is. to public health crisis when it comes to the drug crisis is that we have to meet people where they're at and that we need to provide all options. And I absolutely believe that sober housing, drug-free housing is and has to be absolutely an option that we offer as a city. I think for here that I can also understand to make sure that we protect the integrity of sober housing and drug-free housing, that for those who fall short of that will have to reconsider or be reconsidered for a different location. to continue on with treatment and housing option. I think that is where the rubber meets the road, and it makes it difficult for us to figure out how then do we still continue to support these individuals who clearly fall short and cannot maintain sobriety in this situation and actually impact those who seek sobriety and are having success and already working hard to maintain that success. And so what I'm seeing is that it pains me to see the language in here that I totally understand the challenge and the struggle with words and how do we identify these housing and options for individuals and then make sure that the intent is clear, the policy is clear. It also pains me to see to see that I don't see that they are mutually exclusive, meaning to support those who are fighting hard and maintain success in sober housing and those who have foreshortened and need alternative options so that they can remain housed and still receive treatment. And I think that it's the reason why I support both Supervisor Dorsey's amendments as well as Supervisor Filder's amendments today. I would love to see the word relocation instead of eviction in this policy, to be honest, and to kind of put the responsibility actually on the city, given the fact that we're now narrowing it down to city-funded and new sites. I think that the city should have ownership in this to say that we should own that to provide and support the providers and operators that reallocate individuals who fall short in the drug-free housing setting. I am struggling with this, and I have been since the time that Supervisor Dorsey has introduced this legislation. I was very grateful for the fact that there was agreement to send this back to committee so that there was ongoing conversation and discussion and allowing some space. But I did know that eventually we'll come back, and I was hoping for a version that with using terminology that I can be on board with and be more comfortable with. Because I do know it is not actually about the terminology or just about the terminology being used, but truly it's really about the policy that is being implemented and how we can actually support individuals with their diverse needs and with diverse options and that they can all reach success and become functioning members of our society once more. And because I do recognize that it's a public health crisis and it's a disease, that no one should be criminalized for fighting to get better and try to get you know, um, but also no one should be homeless, uh, when they also trying to again, um, fight this disease. So I am struggling with this colleagues. Um, and I'm hoping that we can approve both the amendments, um, so that we can, um, support this for now and revisit this conversation once more, uh, once we learn better about the data. and how successful individuals can be and whether or not people do end up falling into homelessness and how do we end up supporting the individuals. Thank you.

Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I'm proud to cosponsor this measure because at its core it is about giving people a chance. People working to overcome addiction deserve a chance to live somewhere that supports their recovery. Families with children, seniors, and residents who simply want a home free from illicit drug use deserve that chance too. San Francisco has tried many approaches with good intentions, but good intentions alone are not enough, and the results speak for themselves. Too many people remain trapped in addiction, too many residents feel unsafe in their own buildings, and too many people trying to recover are being asked to do so while surrounded by the very substances they're trying to leave behind. When the current approach is not producing the results we need, we have a responsibility to try new ideas. I don't really care for whichever terminology we use. The bottom line is that the current model may work for some residents, but it should not be the only option. This legislation creates more drug-free supportive housing for people who actively want an environment that supports sobriety and recovery. This is not about punishment and is not about expecting perfection. Relapse can be part of recovery, and one mistake should not automatically cost someone their home. The measure includes protections and requires that alternative housing be offered before an otherwise compliant resident can be evicted for drug use. Compassion means more than maintaining the status quo. It means being honest about what is not working and giving people better choices. We cannot guarantee recovery, but we can give people a real chance at it.

Nobody else is in the queue. Supervisor Dorsey, I want to thank you. This is one of those moments where I'm grateful for your presence on this board, grateful for your passion around getting San Francisco on a different path. And let's make no mistake, the path we're on is a distressing and disturbing one. The status quo is insane. The status quo in which so many folks living in permanent supportive housing developments are consigned to deal with the most outrageous behavior from their neighbors, and the managers of those buildings are unable to do anything about it because of government policy. And the status quo in those neighborhoods is that are impacted by the rampant sales and use in public space of drugs is unacceptable. And so, Supervisor Dorsey, your measure here that you have labored over for a year, more than a year, is the most modest, incremental step in the direction of supporting recovery in this housing. It does not apply to existing, the 10,000 plus existing units of permanent supportive housing that are drug tolerant. It does not apply to most of the new permanent supportive housing that will come online, as you have described. It will apply to the small fraction of PSH that comes online that is funded by city funding without another funding source. So I have no anxiety about your measure. I think it is extremely important that we make this enforceable by our departments. I'm happy to support your amendment. I will not be supporting the other. Madam Clerk, do you care which order we vote on these amendments?

The motion made by Supervisor Dorsey, seconded by Supervisor Sherrill.

Would be first. All right. Can you please call the roll on that amendment?

On the Dorsey-Sherrill amendment to item 41, Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton? No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong I supervisor Chan Chan I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey Dorsey I supervisor Fielder Fielder I supervisor Mahmoud Mahmoud I supervisor Mandelman I Mandelman I and supervisor Melgar I Melgar I there are ten eyes and one no with supervisor Walton voting no the motion passes

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the second amendment, Fielder and Milgar?

Yes, on the Fielder-Milgar amendment to item 41, Supervisor Sauter? No. Sauter, no. Supervisor Sherrill? No. Sherrill, no. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong? No. Wong, no. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? No. Dorsey, no. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Mahmoud, no. Supervisor Mandelman?

No.

Mandelman, no. And Supervisor Melgar?

Aye.

Melgar, aye. There are five ayes and six nos with Supervisors Sauter, Sheryl, Wong, Dorsey, Mahmoud, and Mandelman voting no.

Sorry. So there are? Five ayes. Five ayes. And the motion does not pass. OK. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on the amended item?

On item 41, as amended, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. No. Chen, no. Supervisor Chen. No. Chen, no. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. No. Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmoud. Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Malgar.

Aye.

Melgar, aye. There are seven ayes and four nos, with Supervisors Walton, Chen, Chen, and Fielder voting no.

The ordinance is passed on first reading. Ah, Supervisor Chen.

I sincerely apologize. I would like to rescind my vote on item number 39.

So there's a motion to rescind the vote on 39. Is there a second? Seconded by Walton. Can we take that without objection? Without objection, the vote is rescinded. OK. And then Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on item? You don't still need to talk, Supervisor Chad, right?

I can take that. Thank you.

All right. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on item 39?

On item 39, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. No. Chan, no. Supervisor Chen. No. Chan, no. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud. Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are eight ayes and three nos, with Supervisors Walton, Chan, and Chen voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, please call item 42.

Item 42, this is a resolution to affirm San Francisco's support for the speed safety system pilot program and to urge the exploration of changes to strengthen the program to include increasing the number of allowable speed camera locations with priority given to corridors on the high injury network and other locations with demonstrated safety need.

And please call the roll on this item.

On item 42, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. No. Walton, no. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 10 ayes and 1 no, with Supervisor Walton voting no.

The resolution is adopted. Please call item 43.

Item 43, this item was considered by the Rules Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, July 13. This item is a motion appointing Betty Packard and Ruth Grace Wong, terms ending November 30, 2026, to the Ballot Simplification Council.

Please call the roll.

On item 43, Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the motion is approved. Let's go to roll call.

Supervisor Sautter, you're first to introduce new business. Submit thank you. Supervisor Sherrill. Submit thank you. Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution and also a BLA request. First, I'm introducing a resolution in support of continuing the Bayview shuttle. District 10 residents continue to face urgent transportation inequities that limit access to jobs, healthcare, education, grocery stores, and other essential services. This resolution is to encourage continued and sustainable funding and long-term support for the Bayview Community Shuttle Program, a critical equity and access initiative serving Bayview-Hunters Point. Far too long, transportation inequities have limited access to jobs, healthcare, education, grocery stores, and other essential services for many District 10 residents. The Bayview Community Shuttle was created to help address those challenges by providing reliable, low-cost transportation that connects people to opportunity while strengthening community connections. Since launching in November 2024, the program has demonstrated remarkable success. Ridership continues to grow, with hundreds of rides provided each day and consistently high satisfaction from the people who rely on the service. More importantly, the shuttle has become a lifeline for seniors, youth, families, workers, and individuals with disabilities who depend on safe, accessible transportation. This program is about more than moving people from one place to another. It also creates economic opportunity by connecting residents to workforce development programs that prepare local community members for careers in the transportation industry. It is a model that invests in both mobility and economic empowerment. As many of you know, District 10 will soon face additional transportation challenges as the Islayas Creek Bridge Replacement Project moves forward. That critical infrastructure project will bring years of construction-related impacts, making reliable neighborhood transportation even more important for our residents, businesses, and workers. This resolution recognizes the tremendous partnerships that have made the shuttle successful, from SFMTA and community-based organizations to workforce development partners and neighborhood advocates, and urges continued investment to ensure this program remains available well into the future. I want to thank all of the partners, advocates, drivers, and residents who have helped make this program such a success. Together, we are demonstrating what equitable transportation can look like when we invest directly in our communities. Colleagues, I respectfully ask for your support of this resolution. I also want to thank my colleagues who have supported and thank Supervisor Chen as well as Supervisor Fielder for their early co-sponsorship. Colleagues, I am also requesting the budget and legislative analysts to independently analyze the economic impact of the charter reform measures proposed by Mayor Lurie that are currently undergoing the signature verification process at the Department of Elections. San Francisco voters are being asked to decide on three charter reform measures this November that will fundamentally restructure how the city operates, including expanding mayoral hiring and firing authority, as well as reorganization power, extending the city administrator's term to 10 years while giving that office sole authority over procurement, and raising the signature threshold for citizen initiatives from 2% to 8%. These are not small technical fixes. They shift real power away from the Board of Supervisors, independent commissions, and from the residents of San Francisco. They also come with real fiscal implications that voters deserve to understand before they cast a ballot and not after. The measure's own language actually makes the case for scrutiny. The contracting measure states outright that the city spends over $5 billion a year on contracts, that a single procurement can cost $25,000 and take up to a year, and that departments are running five duplicate Microsoft contracts and 20 separate training systems. If those numbers are the justification for centralizing power in the city administrator's office, we should be able to verify them and see the actual projected savings. At the same time, the executive branch measure opens the door to new deputy mayor positions with no cap on salary or number at a moment when the city is already citing budget constraints elsewhere and as we've seen in the most recent budget process. We saw what happens when coordination fails without this structure in place. The patrol yard example cost us 465 units of affordable housing and led to a billion-dollar muni yard rebuild instead. But we haven't seen anything showing this measure would have prevented that or what these new positions would actually cost taxpayers. This is why I'm requesting the BLA complete an independent cost analysis by September 8, 2026, San Francisco voters, our city officials, the press, and community organizations need this information while there's still time to act on it. My request is to make sure the fiscal case and economic impact for these measures holds up to the same scrutiny that we'd expect for any other major policy change of this scale. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Supervisor Wong. SUBMIT THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHEN. SUBMIT THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHEN.

Thank you, Madam. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution urging Congress to pass H.R. 1667, the Acupuncture for Our Seniors Act. Under the current law, licensed acupuncturists are prohibited from being Medicare providers, significantly limiting access to this health intervention, which has been used as treatment for multiple health concerns, including cancer, infertility, substance use disorder, and chronic pain. The efficacy of acupuncture as a meaningful and effective treatment option for many medical conditions was validated when the ACA helped to increase access by allowing individual states to cover acupuncturists in plans on state health exchanges. California is one of those examples. This bill, which was introduced by Representative Judy Chu and Brian Fitzpatrick, aims to recognize licensed acupuncturists as Medicare providers and to expand access to affordable acupuncture treatments for seniors nationwide. And next, I have in memory for colleagues, I would like to adjourn today's meeting in memory of Fei-Ben Li, Ben was born in 1948 in Taishan, China, and grew up in San Francisco. He passed away peacefully at home last month at age of 78. Ben was a student activist at UC Berkeley at a time when the Ethics Study Department was just born out of the 1969 Third World Liberation Front strike. During this time, Ben helped to develop one of the first Asian Studies campus community projects, Asian Legal Services, Draft Help. This project was a grassroots effort that served the people to provide legal services and protect young men, often working class immigrants, from the selective services system and to assist veterans with conscientious objector claims. Ben, along with his partner, Pam Tao Lee, were founding members of the Chinese Progressive Association, organizing Chinese immigrants and American-born workers, students, foreign students, and Chinatown youth. As a Chinatown worker, he led and won a unionization strike of Chinese warehouse workers, becoming a proud member of Teamsters 856. Ben and his wife have been beloved mentors to so many Asian American community organizers and leaders in San Francisco, myself included. His quick wake, sense of humor, genuine love for people would always bring warmth to a space, Ben's gentle nature and big heart will be deeply missed. His legacy will live on in the organizations and people he helps shape. May his memory be a blessing. And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Chen. Supervisor Dorsey. Submit. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I have one resolution and one BLA report. I'm introducing a resolution supporting California State Assembly Bill number 2564, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward and coauthored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra. Retailers are using personally identifiable consumer data to charge some consumers discriminatory prices in what is being called surveillance pricing. consumers' characteristics and behaviors like location, demographics, browsing patterns, mouse movements on web pages, and shopping history are now being used against them to help corporations set individualized prices for products and services. For example, a February 2025 SFGate investigation found that the most popular hotel booking sites show prices substantially higher in one case $500 more per night for a Manhattan hotel, to San Franciscans using their online booking platforms compared with users browsing from less affluent cities like Phoenix and Kansas City. No existing federal or state law prohibits companies from using the data they collect to charge consumers individually different prices. That is why I am introducing this resolution to encourage the timely adoption of AB2564 to protect consumers from surveillance pricing. I hope I can count on your support. As well, I am requesting the Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office evaluate the costs and other impacts of establishing a microenterprise home kitchen operations program in San Francisco that would allow San Francisco residents to prepare food for sale from their private residences. At a time when the city is becoming increasingly unaffordable, it's important for us to continue looking for ways for San Franciscans, especially those without much access to large amounts of capital and people who migrate from other countries and are afraid of traveling to and from places of work among an increasingly hostile federal administration, to be able to make a living in this city. In the mission, we have many longtime, small-scale Latino entrepreneurs, also known as food vendors, who have been caught in a complicated food permitting system. It is my intent that a MECO program in San Francisco would complement our compact mobile food ordinance passed earlier this year and help food vendors use their homes to support their CMFO businesses, of course, abiding by all relevant local public health and permitting regulations. Counties similar in size and urban character to San Francisco have seen successful MECO programs, including Alameda, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Los Angeles, and this BLA report will construct costs and operational profiles for each of these counties that can be used to estimate the normalized costs for a San Francisco MECO program. I'm hopeful that this report can galvanize us as a city to take on this program and ensure San Francisco remains a city affordable to people of all walks of life. I want to thank the Cook Alliance, the Mission Food Vendors Council, and Nuestra Causa for pushing the city forward and advising on this next step for a MECO program in San Francisco. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Mahmoud.

Colleagues, today I'm introducing a motion to allow the board to call file number 260693, the Affordable Groceries Act's vacancy tax, from the Budget and Finance Committee to Committee of the Whole on July 21st. This measure needs to reach the full board by late July to make the November ballot. This motion preserves the only path left for this board and the voters to have a say. This motion, I'll remind, is not about the merits of the tax itself. It's about whether San Franciscans living in food deserts get a public hearing and a discussion on a policy that affects so many of our neighborhoods. I want to also say that I know that all of us in City Hall, the mayor, and all 11 of us on the board, we all agree that food deserts are a problem in our city. We all agree that affordability of food is a problem we all should solve. I know that all of us care about our city. And even if we occasionally disagree on the different approaches to get there, we're ultimately trying to do the best we can for the city in the best way that we know how. I want to thank the co-sponsors who signed onto this motion and for standing that we should have this hearing regardless of if even many of these sponsors may ultimately land on a different side of this policy itself. Thank you again. Second colleagues, my second item is an official street renaming of Avery Street to Boswell Way in honor of Reverend Hamilton T. Boswell. Reverend Boswell was a religious and civic leader and a bedrock of the Fillmore neighborhood and the black community in San Francisco. Born in Texas, Reverend Boswell was on the groundbreaking Wiley College debate team, which oversaw witnessing lynchings and institutional racism to defeat the national champion USC debate team in 1935. He came to San Francisco in 1947 to lead Jones Memorial United Methodist Church. In his time leading the church, he committed to uplifting the San Francisco black community by leading the creation of the Jones Methodist Credit Union and Jones Memorial Homes, the first federally financed senior housing in the city. He mentored countless church and civic leaders, including future mayor Willie Brown, who he managed the first campaign of. Reverend Browswell also served as a chaplain for the California State Assembly and the San Francisco Police Department, was chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission, and twice awarded the NAACP Freedom Award. The street to be renamed Avery Street runs for one block alongside Jones Memorial Church and Jones Memorial Homes, has no residential addresses on it. For longtime community members in the Western Edition, this might feel a bit like deja vu. As a matter of fact, if you open up Google Maps, the street in question between Post and Geary, just off Fillmore, is already labeled as Boswell Street. In 2008, then-District 5 Supervisor Ross Maricarimi introduced a resolution of intention to rename the street. Resolution of intention kicks off the street renaming process and are meant to be followed by resolutions that direct public works to update official maps and SFMTA to put up signs with the new name. In an odd situation of the Twilight Zone, the signs went up before the second resolution came to be and Avery was signed as Boswell for over 17 years until earlier this year when department staff noted the discrepancy and quietly replaced the Boswell signs with the Avery signs. This was difficult for the Jones Memorial community, who not only relied on the Boswell name for navigation to their church and adjacent senior homes, but saw the street name as an indelible honor for their longtime leader who touched too many lives across the decades. I'm bringing forward this resolution to once and for all make sure the signs never come down and permanently enshrine Reverend Boswell's name on our city maps and documents. Thank you, Reverend Sadie Stone and the rest of the Jones Memorial United Methodist Church community for bringing this to our attention. Thanks as well to John Malamud from the city attorney's office, Jason Wong, and Ian Schneider from Public Works, and Chadwick Lee from MSF MTA for helping our office piece all of this very bizarre story together. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Mahmood. Supervisor Mandelman.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution to recognize August 2nd through August 8th, 2026 as National Health Center Week in San Francisco. Formed in 1982, the San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium is a brilliant example of the community health center legacy. Born from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, these centers seek to serve the underserved at a cost they can afford. Today, the clinic consortium is composed of 12 member clinics that tailor their services to meet the unique needs of the communities in which they are located. Each is rooted in and shaped by the community it serves, offering care that reflects the languages, cultures, and lived realities of their patients. San Francisco's community health centers have delivered culturally appropriate care and improved linguistic access to more than 10% of the city's population. For their patients, these centers are often the only access to primary care. This resolution is our acknowledgment and thanks to San Francisco's community health centers for their work delivering individualized, dignified medical care to those who would otherwise go without, and for doing so even as the landscape grows more difficult each year. I want to thank Dina Lan of the San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium for her partnership in bringing this resolution forward. We've worked with them over the past two years to recognize National Health Center Week in San Francisco. I want to thank my colleagues, Supervisors Chan and Chen, for their co-sponsorship. And I want to thank Maeve Skelly in my office for her work on the resolution. And the rest I will submit.

Thank you, Mr. President and Supervisor Melgar. Submit. Thank you. Mr. President Singh, Supervisor Chan.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, thank you. It was unclear to me that we rescinded the vote for item 39. It's not clear to me why we rescind the vote when we're already past item 41. And so I need to rescind that item 39 vote once more. But help me understand exactly what happened on item 39.

Any member can ask to rescind the vote on any item at any point.

But it was not clear to me that we were rescinding. It was not clear to me why we were rescinding the vote of item 39. When we pass it, I wish someone had explained why we were rescinding the vote. But I would like to rescind the vote then.

There is a motion to rescind. Is there a second? Seconded by Fielder. And we can take that motion without objection. I love voting on this item. Madam Clerk, please.

Ms. President, yes, I'd like to read the item on this. Please call. Read the item and call. Just very quickly, the short title.

My apologies, but before we do so, help me understand, too, though, who was it that I assumed that Supervisor Chen made the motion to rescind the vote, and it was seconded by Supervisor Fielder? Walton. Why is it that we have to rescind the vote?

Hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. I'm supposed to run this meeting. I'm sorry. I will just read the title quickly. It just was not clear.

Through the President and Supervisor Chan, I could have slowed things down and read this title so that everyone knew we were on a new item, number one. And so this is an ordinance that amends the planning, administrative building codes, inclusionary housing program updates and reductions and the development impact fee reductions.

Thank you.

Please call the roll on item 39.

I guess this would be the moment for the supervisor to indicate why she would have liked the item to be rescinded in the first place.

Yes, please.

Of course, I love to answer I Again, I think I said it I would love to advance both The housing trust fund and also continue to be keeping our city affordable to support our inclusionary rate so with that I I also said publicly that I am not supporting the legislation because we are forcing to choose one or the other, but not both. But I did say that I support Supervisor Fielder's amendment. So with that, I initially, I was confused. And so I voted, but I'm voting in support of Supervisor Fielder's amendment. Overall, as a legislation, even with the amendment that was adopted, and I'm still a no to the entire legislation because I believe that we should do both together.

Thank you. I just would have wished that was, anyways, done two items before in a timely fashion, but thank you. I appreciate colleagues allowing me to resent the vote after the vote was rescinded.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on item 39.

This is on the ordinance on first reading as amended for item 39, Supervisor Sautter. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton? No. Wolton, no. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen, no. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmood. Mahmood, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar. Melgar, aye. There are nine ayes and two nos, with Supervisors Walton and Chen voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading. As amended. Madam Clerk. I think that takes us to general public comment.

That's correct.

Let's do that.

At this time, the board welcomes general public comment. In-person speakers will be prioritized, so please line up on your right-hand side of the chamber. Once the in-person speakers line is exhausted, we'll move to the remote speakers. If you anticipate providing remote public comment, the telephone number and meeting ID is published on the agenda and streaming on your screen, I believe. It is best to call in early. As a reminder, SFGov TV is Not in sync with this meeting. It's delayed by a few seconds, so please pay attention to the phone prompt and turn down your television. General public comment, you may speak to the June 9th, 2026 board meeting minutes as presented and the items 46 and 47 under the adoption without committee reference calendar. Please note that the budget items have already been publicly commented in committee and are not eligible for comment today. Other general matters that are not on today's agenda but must be within the board's subject matter jurisdiction. And to that end, just note that self-expression that contains personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory remarks directed at any city employee or board member are strictly outside of this scope. And failure to redirect your comments will result in a transition to the next speaker. So welcome to our first speaker, who is in the chamber. We are setting the timer for two minutes. Welcome.

Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Amelia, resident of District 9. I want to thank everybody for the opportunity of serving on the Behavioral Health Council, but today I'm here speaking only as an individual. I've been impressed by this greater administration's ability to carefully integrate the city's street teams. Despite the growing pains, I can see the vision, as can many of my colleagues. At this moment of our growth in our 24-hour crisis continuum of care, however, in the next few weeks, we are facing the quiet removal of the peer counselors from the street crisis response team. The loss of the peer counselor's institutional knowledge and field expertise during 911 behavioral crises is an oversight on our street response, and we cannot afford it. In an analysis published by San Jose State University regarding our street crisis team, researchers identified a, quote, disconnect between decision makers' understanding of the work and team members' experience of the work. They show how this leads to burnout and moral injury in our first responders, which, quote, impedes their ability to serve clients and can create structural changes for municipalities. In response to the now confirmed rumors, I have already presented the value assessments to both the Health Commission and the Fire Commission. I have full faith that the actors in this room can reverse this decision, as it didn't seem to be made on budgetary concerns. But let's look forward. If we want our peer counselors to graduate to permanent civil service positions, I have a long-term plan. And I ask for this board's support when it reaches you. In the interim, as we repair this blunder, I have a plan to standardize training accountability and I have a plan to operationalize efficiency. Keeping peers is the responsible decision to our first responders and to our city. Our officers, paramedics, EMTs, peer counselors would much rather be out there running calls and serving San Franciscans than in here proving their worth or their efficiency. With word getting out over the weekend, I have already gotten field reports from our police officers calling this what it is, a mistake. Tomorrow I will be warning the police commission. Let's please repair this now when we have the chance. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome.

Good evening, President Mandelman, Supervisors. My name is Julie Su, and I speak today on behalf of SONA, Save Our National Archives. I'm here with big sister Jenny Liu, who will speak after me. I speak in great support of Supervisor Chan's resolution, item number 47, to halt the closure of the National Archives and Records Administration at San Francisco, located in San Bruno. 20 years ago, we had this fight. But 20 years ago, there was public testimony. This administration, this White House administration, has failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, giving public notice, taking public testimony. This is our collective history. It's not only our state's history. It is our nation's history. And if any one of you think that you haven't been touched by the National Archives, I ask you to think again. contains Native American artifacts and documents, as well as Chinese American Exclusion Act documents, Japanese American relocation for the African-American community, the Port Chicago documents, Jewish history documents from Russian immigrants who went through Angel Island. It's not a surprise that there are attempts to erase history. I know that this Board of Supervisors has taken great pains to right the wrongs of our history. Without this documentation, we cannot have this particular attention to righting the wrongs of history. And this is not just governmental, academic history. This is also our family history. And the people who live here, it was our ancestors who created this history. It is a means for us to unite families. to have some strength in our families knowing our history. As we talk about education and making sure that our students understand our history, this is an archive and records history that is right in our backyard. It is one of the few National Archives that also has a research center with very valued staff who can lead people to documents. So I urge you not only to support this resolution, but also to be co-sponsored, to send a very strong message that we will not let our history be erased. Thank you. And now to Big Sister Jenny Liu.

Thank you, Commissioner Hsu, for your comments. Welcome.

She calls me Big Sister because I've been working on this for 25 years. They were going to close all the regional archives throughout the nation. But we worked with Tom Lantos to stop that. And then they were going to destroy alien files, all the nation's alien files. They're not just Asian files. Those are over 3 quarters of a million cubic feet of files. And our Pacific region that covers has the largest collection of alien files from Port of Hawaii all the way up the West Coast. People from all over the world come to look at these immigration files. And we were the only region that demanded that they stay in San Bruno. We are the origin of these files. The people that use them are from our region. They are our history. And like Julie said, it can be Russian Jews. It can be Eastern Europeans. It will be largely the people that were excluded first from coming to this country. And in our particular Chinese files, we have coaching documents with detailed village maps of which people from my generation, if they wish to go back to their ancestral villages and find the home where the ancestral shrine is, their only chance is maybe to look at these coaching documents and these detailed maps. So please give your strongest support. We lose this, they will never come back.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors of San Francisco. My name is Michelle Lau. I am a president of the American Alliance of Acupuncture, and then I have been in practice over 45 years. Today I ask for your all support to the, we just, the supervisor chair mentioned, the Bill HR 1667, That's for 70 million of the elderly who can be covered by acupuncture, which this bill is already passed about eight years ago with HR 6. Acupuncture is already included in the Medicare system. and after 27 years of advocacy and effort. So luckily we can serve now 70 million of the American people elderly, but unfortunately we still need to continue to work harder to get the licensed acupuncture, qualified acupuncture into the provider, which we have been done tremendously to offer the whole country. And this July 18, we welcome all of you come to join our community and patient and the profession. We have an event in the Chinatown and that we have a full support from the community and hopefully we can see this bill can pass hopefully next year. So we go to the Congress every month to serve the American Alliance of Acupuncture, to serve the Congress member and their staff, and make sure they understand how important that for to have the assets for all 70 million the elderly can have acupuncture pretty soon after bills already passed, acupuncture's already included. Hopefully we can get your great support. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Hi. My name is Elizabeth Aaron. Today is the first time I've felt the need to attend a meeting of the San Francisco City Supervisors in person. Last week I was shocked to find that final approval had been given to a 23-floor building at the end of my street. I received no notice of this project either at my home or posted on the site, which I pass almost daily. While there are many issues with this project, today I would like to highlight one ongoing issue I have beyond the lack of public notice. My issue is the continued perpetuation of the idea that residents of San Francisco, especially those who live in my neighborhood, should not have cars. I am an attorney and have worked in land use planning, so I understand the theories upon which this idea originates, but I also know that in reality, no matter how transit friendly a neighborhood is, people who buy market rate homes will have cars. I have lived on Clinton Park for more than 20 years, where I have had to deal with ever increasing pressure and stress caused by loss of parking due to ill-conceived bike paths, new intersection red zones, which are constantly used by lift drivers and provide no safety protections, and a complete lack of enforcement of traffic laws. Adding a 200-plus unit building with only 62 parking spaces is delusional and dangerous. People are already constantly frustrated by the maze that has been caused by the closure of right and left turns, and many are just breaking the law. Add to that the fact that sometimes it takes up to 40 minutes to find a parking space, and you have a dangerous situation for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians like myself. Thank you for listening to my comments. Perhaps you can give them consideration in further applications.

Thank you for your comments. Ma'am, we're going to obtain your address, and we'll let you know more information on that address and that project. Before the next speaker, are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment? Otherwise, this will be our last in-person speaker. Welcome, sir.

Board of Supervisors and Mayor's Office of San Francisco. The title of this speech is Aging of Change. In the year 1999, I hooked up a friend, David Tam from San Francisco and Van Sea from Los Angeles for a relationship and apostle marriage. After getting hold of Van's email, David sat in front of the computer to compose a letter. I don't know what to say, he exclaimed to his younger sister, Amy Tran. Don't know what to say. What an interesting proposition. I explored this message in context for two and a half decade. To tear this down, I'll provide two types of message. mindset, and psychology. According to Webster's dictionary, mindset means behavior, attitude, and viewpoint. Psychology has to do with character, belief system, micro-actions, and routine. According to Robert David, the word character means Carving, it drives deep. In November 2018, I will always remember the day I called my friend Tyler Chan. Deanna texted me from Thailand. Let's go to Thailand. Derek, he replied exhaustively, you spent seven months to get her phone number, another year just to text her. You don't even know where she lives. How are you going to expect to marry her? I was completely dumbfounded. Two hours later. Miss Chinatown of San Francisco, call me. She's the one on the left. Derek, I'm going to go to Hong Kong to compete for Miss Chinese International. I need your help. She came back with the title, Miss Popular of Miss Chinese International. Board Supervisor, people do not write books because they don't feel like they'll be read. And people don't go into politics because they don't feel like they could make a difference. I'm here to make a difference in politics because I feel like I could do it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome, Otto Duffy.

Otto Duffy. I don't know what to say exactly, as usual. My dad was an alcoholic, and as he got older, In one of his meetings, he pointed out the critical things that you need to do if you're an alcoholic as you get older, if you want to become an old alcoholic. And there were only two things. One, you have to keep from drinking. And two, you have to keep breathing. The rest of what happened here at this meeting, I have no... I had to sign a 100-page, because so many people subsidized my housings. There's so many people that were involved in it. I signed a 100-page lease, and I had to sign 100 pages. It's got all kinds of things in it. I went to a pre-law person to ask them about it. And they said, you have no choice. If you want to live here, you have to sign the lease. And if I don't live there, I'm going to die. So I have to sign the lease. But they also pointed out that half of it is pretty much unenforceable. So I don't know.

All right, thank you for your comments. Seeing no other speakers in person, we'll go to the remote callers. I believe we have two. I'll just remind the callers that if you, please listen to the system when it says you have been unmuted. That is your cue to begin speaking. and that there is nothing in state law that will confer any privilege or protection for expression that constitutes discriminatory or harassing remarks. We will move to the next speaker after a quick redirect. All right, let's bring in our first caller, please. Welcome. Speaker, are you there?

Oh, hello.

Sorry.

Hi, I'm with the League of Women Voters. I'm here today to urge you to agendize the open nine seats on the Sunshine Orange Task Force. The Task Force hasn't been able to meet since the beginning of July and will be unable to meet until these seats are filled. The Sunshine Orange Task Force is one of the few ways people have to hold Texas' own government accountable to transparency laws. People can ask for government records for all kinds of reasons. A resident wants to know who a government official met with before casting a key vote. A journalist is checking whether a contract was awarded fairly. Someone wants to know why a project in their neighborhood got the green light. But sometimes when a person asks for government records, someone in government drives their theater says no. The person can bring their problems, getting the public records to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, which reviews the complaint and can tell the government, official, or department, you're in the wrong, have it over. As Sylvie Sturm with the Satchito Public Press reported last week, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force and the public's right to know is in limbo. While these essential appointments are inexplicably and unnecessarily delayed, every day these seats go unfulfilled is the week government gets to operate in the dark. The League of Women Voters urges you to put the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force member appointments on the agenda for your next meeting of the Rules Committee without further delay. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Let's welcome the next anonymous caller.

We can't hear you.

Can you please speak a little slower? We cannot understand what you're saying. All right. Caller, if you've left the line, we will move on to the next caller. Okay. Team in the back, are there any other callers?

There are no more callers. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Thank you. All right, Mr. President.

Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, could you please call the for adoption without committee reference agenda items 46 and 47 together?

Yes, items 46 and 47. These items were introduced for adoption without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today. Any member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee.

Please call the roll on these items.

On items 46 and 47, Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton? Holton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. And Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Madam clerk do we have any imperative agenda items?

They're an under report.

Could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual on behalf of supervisor Chan for the late. Mr. Faye Ben Lee supervisor Chen, excuse me For mr. Faye Ben Lee

And I believe, Madam Clerk, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Do we have any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are adjourned.