Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, and welcome to the June 30, 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. May that be a one-time thing, everyone. We do have an approved board rule that there are no audible sounds of support or against anyone. Thank you kindly. Supervisor Mahmoud? Present. Mahmoud, present. Supervisor Mandelman?

Present.

Mandelman present. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar present. Supervisor Sauter? Sauter 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 Ramatushaloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramatush Ohlone 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 want to acknowledge the staff at SFGov TV. Today, that is especially Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. And colleagues, before we get into our meeting, Supervisor Fielder, who has returned from her extended leave, ask that we grant her privilege of the floor to provide some remarks. And if there are no objections, and I don't see any, I think we can grant her privilege without objection. Supervisor Fielder is provided privilege of the floor.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Thank you, colleagues. I want to thank you for your grace in extending a excuse for my absence for an extended leave. It's not something that I wanted to do, but something that my doctor recommended. And I'm very glad I did take the time to protect my mental health. In this time, I've had a steadfast team in Anna, Jen, Sheila, and Sasha. I want to thank you for your dedication and all the hard work that you've done to ensure our constituents continue to be served in District 9 and moving our legislation forward. I want to thank Madam Clerk Angela Calvillo for your guidance and support throughout this process. I want to thank our city departments for going above and beyond to help our constituents in District 9. I want to thank Mayor Lurie and his staff for their compassion and assistance to my office, especially around small business and public safety concerns. I especially want to thank my constituents, Community leaders, community groups from Bernal, the Mission, and Portola, who I have the honor of serving in this chair, I want to thank you for the outpouring of support when I was in my hospital and during my leave. So thank you all so much for your grace, and I'm so proud and honored to be back. Thank you, President Mandelman.

uh thank you supervisor fielder it's good to have you back and um it's credit to you that your office has uh performed so well um in your time out so thanks to them from us as well um madam clerk do you have any communications

Yes, thank you. The Board of Supervisors welcomes all of your attendance here in person in the Board's Legislative Chamber, Room 250, second floor of City Hall. And when you are not able to be here, the proceedings are airing live on SFGOV-TV's cable channel, depending on your provider. Or you can catch the live stream at sfgovtv.org. You may also submit public comment in writing by sending an email to BOS at sfgov.org or use the postal service. Just address the envelope to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one, Dr. Carlton, B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 941. 94102. If you need to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act or to request language assistance, contact the clerk's office two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's go to our consent agenda. Please call Items 1 through 4.

Thank you, Mr. President. Items one through four 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 these items.

On items 1 through 4, Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, 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? Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. And Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinances are passed on first reading, and the resolution is adopted. Let's go to unfinished business. Please call item number five.

Item five, this is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to change the name of the Status of Women Domestic Violence Program Fund to the Domestic Violence Shelter Base Program Fund, to revise the purpose of the fund, establish the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development or another agency designated by the mayor as administrator of the fund with delegated duties, and to update provisions regarding the fund to reflect state law changes relating to fees collected by the county clerk for the fund.

Let's take this item same house same call without objection the ordinance is finally passed Madam clerk, let's go to new business. Please call item number six item six.

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 additionally to remove various obsolete reporting requirements, eliminate defunct funds, agencies, plans, staffing requirements, and programs, to make other updates and other conforming amendments, and to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. This ordinance has been around for a while. I want to thank the members of GAO for hearing it and passing it to the full board. Since the GAO had its hearing yesterday, we actually got some correspondence expressing concerns from folks in the local small business community that I think we want to spend a little time looking at. I think there may be some other questions and concerns that we're hearing about from colleagues. So I think it would make sense to give us a little bit of time to think through these issues and figure out if we need to make amendments or what we need to do with this. So I will move that we continue this item for two weeks. Madam Clerk. Second. That's been seconded by Supervisor Walton. And that is until? July 14th. July 14th. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mendelman. Just kind of want to understand what even brought this about. What's the purpose of this legislation, this ordinance? What even brought it about?

Well, oh gosh. We're going to have a conversation about it. So this, there are a ton of reporting requirements built into our codes. Often when we pass legislation and supervisors for decades now have passed legislation on various topics of concern to the public. often they will add a reporting requirement about something that seems very important in that moment. And that means that either on an annual basis or longer than annually, there are city staff who spend time preparing reports. Many of those reports end up being read by no one. Some of those reports made sense 20 years ago but do not make sense now. So our city attorney and his team took it upon themselves more than a year ago.

So the city attorney bought this test?

The city attorney brought it to us.

So nobody from community came in and said?

There's not a hue and call from the broader community to clean up our codes. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you so much. I'm not going to belabor the point. I am grateful that you are continuing this. I'm not sure two weeks is enough, but I'll go with it. I think that it is a 308-page piece of legislation. It's a lot. And I'm not on GAO. I did watch some of the conversation, and I'm appreciative of my colleagues weighing in on it. I went home, and I ran it through Claude. And I do think most of it is cleanup. It is stuff that is inconsistencies in the code. Our code is a Frankenstein. There are contradicting statements. There are contradicting codes. There are obsolete things. There's things that don't exist anymore. And there is a portion of this legislation that I actually think it's policy decisions that we should think about. Do we still need to keep track of how many women are depicted in our public art? Do we still need to keep track whether women are being paid the same as men? Do we still need to understand how many rental apartments are being converted to condominiums? How often? So I think that there's a bunch of stuff that... is in here, and I will acknowledge it is a minority of things, that we need to actually have a policy conversation. Is this still appropriate? Is it no longer necessary? Can we absorb it into the large report? Perhaps, but I think that now that we are able, through AI, to look at data sets and lots of information and be more efficient in how we look at it. Our processes, we still have a human process. And most importantly, I think as a legislative branch, we have a responsibility to the public to make sure that they understand what we're doing. And I'm not sure that's the case yet. So I am appreciative of a little bit of time so that I can call my women and the LBE folks and everyone and say, is this okay with you? Because I do think that it is a little bit appropriate. Not, you know, saying that this is not worth the work or that somebody hasn't done their job. I am very, very appreciative of the city attorney taking this on. I have been through lots of code cleanup of the planning code, which is in itself a Frankenstein. So I appreciate how much it is. I just think it takes human beings a little bit of time and feels to wrap their heads around what's going on. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Melgar. Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, President Mendelman. I mean, I think that is exactly what the problem is at the moment is that I do not understand why isn't the legislation 300 something pages of it, but with actually multiple subjects couldn't be broken into different pieces of legislation to allow a, first of all, first and foremost, a summary of the legislation that is more digestible for the public and myself included. And I would say, as being an aide for more than 20 years, I will concede to the fact, too, that today I was walking into this chamber, if it wasn't for the continuance, probably be voting against this very legislation for a couple of reasons. And one is we literally just finishing off the budget. I wish I had more time to truly go through the legislation in greater details. But again, of course, in light of the letter coming from Um, you know, the LBE community, but not just that, but just along the way. Um, I think even at its introduction, uh, when city attorney, uh, David choose had indicated this was really written by AI. I mean, I think since then there's, there's a different interpretation how it came about. Uh, but I do know that. There are actually multiple city departments were having a difficult time with this legislation and took them a long time to try to tweak it, which is the reason why it took quite some time to actually be heard at rules. All which is to say, I am not ready to vote on it. Should I be asked to vote for it today and even in two weeks? It will be a no vote. I just want to be very clear about that. But I would absolutely open to in the two weeks' time should President Mendelman and the mayor and, you know, or not mayor, sorry, City Attorney David Chu has decided to say, you know what, there's enough concern and that people actually are open-minded to hear these concerns and be more than willing to understand to break these, put this big piece of legislation into actually subject, single subject, legislation to allow the public and the very legislature, like the policymakers that have to vote on it, to give them that opportunity to really understand and be able to give meaningful amendments, then I would love to see that. Let me also just say overall what this legislation and other legislation, including those that will be on the ballot this fall and what we already have done with streamlined task force, which I don't think I'm actually in the opinion of the majority of this board here at the moment. I think that there are many legislation in this year from last year that piecemealing through, piece by piece, taking away and chipping away transparency of city government and the integrity of city government to make sure that it is transparent to everyday San Franciscan. So that's just my overall opinion. Impression, but also just in disagreements of how we approach, um, all these policies. I do believe that. I know that there's a sentiment out there that, uh, we just need to throw everything away so that we it's make it easier and better. I think that's not the right approach. I didn't approach is to how do we be more surgical in tweaking city governments and regulations and policies to make it work more work more efficient, but it's not to just. to remove everything together. So thank you so much, President Mendelman.

Supervisor Sherrill.

In the conversations about taking time to go through specific amendments and looking through this, I just want to make sure that certain people do get credit for the large amount of time that they spent on this legislation. Specifically, I want to thank Supervisor Chen and her staff who did spend an inordinate amount of time on aspects of this, making it better I think you and your team deserve a lot of credit, especially Charlie. Hopefully you're watching. And also Lorenzo Rosas on my team worked with the planning department. A lot of work has gone into this. And I think sometimes when we talk about transparency, I think transparency is wildly important. But sometimes we decide to be transparent while in actuality drowning people in information. And that becomes the complete opposite of transparency. And this legislation is so large. Because we as a city have done such a bad job holding ourselves accountable for what transparency actually means. And so I don't like that this legislation is enormous because it's a reflection of how we as a city and a body have been honest with the residents of San Francisco and we haven't been. So I think we do need to take a massive whack at it. I don't love the idea that we're continuing this, but I get it. I think that's OK. We can always work things to make them better. But I do want to make sure that the people who have been working on this get the credit. And again, that's Supervisor Chen in her office, Lorenzo Rosas in my office, as well as President Mandelman and his team, and definitely the city attorney who worked their butts off on this. So they deserve a lot of credit for digging in very, very deeply.

Thank you, Supervisor Sherrill. I will echo the thanks to Supervisor Chen and her staff for engaging seriously with this legislation and to you and your staff who worked through with her office some of the concerns that they had raised. I also had requested amendments to the original legislation, which I would note was introduced one year ago. So, um, it, the legislation has been around for a very long time. The city attorney has prepared a very helpful document, which is part of the record, which goes through every single change describes what it is for those who have not had the opportunity to look at that and figure out what might be of concern to you. I would encourage you to do that sooner rather than later. Ideally, this work happens prior to committee. And again, this legislation has been around for a while. But I also understand that having something get to the full board tends to focus people's attentions. And so I am fine with continuing the conversation. Like Supervisor Sherrill, I don't want to talk about this forever. And I do want to get something done, because the city attorney's office And the departments themselves actually did real work to identify what they perceived as pain points and things that they believed were keeping them from turning to more important items of business. Supervisor Chan.

My apologies, President Mendelman, but I think that I just want to add a note to this, though. I do know it's been introduced for a while, and everyone should have the chance to, should have already taken the opportunity to look at it. I think what I'm also trying to say is that it's not just for us, but I think that My question, and I think that City Attorney Chu knows this best because he's both been on the Board of Supervisors and now as our City Attorney, but I kind of question the while it's been introduced and we all know that we can introduce legislation, but never brought attention to stakeholders and how it actually, and it's piggyback on what Supervisor Walton said. It's not being brought on by the community, but it's being brought on by City Attorney Chu, that's fine. That city departments then had a chance to look at it because then they are directly impact how they report back to this body and creating reporting. But again, the stakeholders, which is really the general public, I'm just questioning the outreach and conversation and what has it been like for the people that may be counting on some of these records and that we don't know if they are reading these records, but then perhaps they are. I know that civil grand jury sometimes are dependent on these records. So I am, again, I just have a lot of questions about how this, so I'm not saying that it wasn't, introduce in a timely fashion that people will have enough time. But I think it's also just the approach of how we approach this legislative process in terms of outreach to stakeholders. Thank you.

Supervisor Melgar.

OK, I'm going to be short, and then I'll leave it alone. I wanted to acknowledge what Supervisor Sherrill brought up. I do think that our code is cumbersome and complicated and not accessible, and that as our city has grown and gotten more complicated, it has become more so. So I actually support the goal of this legislation. I want to make sure that I put on the record that I'm not ascribing any motivation. It's not that I'm saying that there is a desire for lack of transparency or anything, but I do want to underscore that I think it's really important that we uphold the integrity of our legislative process. In notwithstanding it, having gone to GAO and folks putting in a lot of work, I acknowledge the aides do God's work. Your aides in particular, there are other constituents that perhaps were not in just your area of interest that are out there that have concerns. I do think our process is there for a reason. that we are the people's house, that we are charged with making sure that we get the feedback from all these different constituencies. And the diversity of this board is its beauty because we are all in touch with different constituencies, different communities. We hear from different people. So something that is 308 pages long that runs across multiple codes and multiple reports over time deserves to have that sort of, you know, respect of the integrity of our process so that we can hear from folks. And it may be that we pass it exactly with every word that it is. I just think that our process is important and that it needs to be digestible, not just to us, but to the public and that we have that responsibility. Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman. I am not going to belabor the point. I do want to thank Supervisor Chan's office and Supervisor Sherrill's office for their work. You had to do this work because it was brought to us, this enormous document. But I will just say this, that we have larger issues to worry about in the city and county of San Francisco. That's one of the reasons why this is problematic for me as well. We've got real things to worry about. And we shouldn't be spending this much time on something that was brought by... It was not brought by the people. It was not brought by one of us. And quite frankly, the way it was brought, the conversations we've had... have been problematic. And so I would just say that, and I'll save what I really want to say for when it comes back to this body. But we got bigger things to address here in San Francisco.

OK. With that, motion is made to continue this until what date? July 14th. July 14th. It has been seconded. Colleagues, I think we can take that motion without objection. Without objection, the motion passes. Madam Clerk, please call Item 7.

Item 7, ordinance to amend the police code to modify provisions of the Fair Chance Ordinance that regulate the use of criminal history in certain employment and housing decisions, specifically by providing that employers and affordable housing providers may not use out-of-state criminal convictions or arrests for conduct that is lawful in California related to abortion-related health care, drag performances, gender-affirming care, and spontaneous abortion as defined. in making certain employment or housing related decisions or increasing administrative penalties for violations and increasing liquidated damages available in a lawsuit.

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

Item eight, yeah. Apologies, Mr. President, I jumped the gun. Item 8, resolution to authorize the mayor or his designee to cast an assessment ballot in the affirmative for the proposed renewal and expansion of a property and business improvement district known as the Downtown Community Benefit District with respect to certain parcels of real property owned by the city that would be subject to assessment in said district.

Let's take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item number 9.

Item 9, resolution to approve the San Francisco Police Department's use of equipment policy 2025 annual report consistent with the criteria set forth in state law.

Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please call item number 10.

Item 10, this is a charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of San Francisco to authorize the establishment of a municipal finance corporation and public bank as nonprofit corporations, and to set forth the mission, principles, and governance structure of those corporations at an election to be held on November 3rd, 2026, and pursuant to provisions of the Board of Supervisors Rules of Order 2.22.7. At least six days must intervene between the first appearance of a charter amendment before the Board as a referral from committee and any Board order of submission to the electorate.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Board President. Colleague, I ask for your support today for this charter amendment to establish the framework and governance for municipal finance, corporation, and public bank. When we look around our city, we see clear market gaps for some of the city's most urgent priorities. These are gaps where small businesses bleed, where affordable housing stores, and where climate projects go unfunded. We know that some things are too important to fall through the cracks. Rigorous due to diligence from financial experts, policy makers, and community stakeholders has confirmed what the data tells us. We can fill those market gaps. We can build a public bank that is both financially profitable and socially transformative. This charter amendment established strong good governance structures with an oversight body selected by the treasurer, controller, city attorney, mayor, and board of supervisors, and a board of directors composed of skilled banking professionals, bankers, and who will uphold financial industry best practices and rigorous financial management. A public bank would open the doors to build an engine for affordable housing. a lifeline for struggling small business, and the financial backbone for our climate goals. Let us use every tool at our disposal to keep this city affordable and to drive an economic recovery that leaves no one behind. Let us take advantage of the pathway that has been created for us by our state lawmakers. I want to thank our treasurer, controller, city attorney, LAFCO, and all the esteemed members of the Reinvestment Working Group. and the tireless advocacy of the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition. They have all laid the foundation for these charter amendments. I also want to thank my early co-sponsors, Supervisor Fielder, Walton, Supervisor Malga, and Supervisor Mahmoud. And I look forward to your support to bring this charter amendment to the voters of San Francisco. Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thanks, President Miniman. I want to thank my colleague, Supervisor Chen, for taking this up. I want to thank Charlie and her office for working tirelessly on this charter amendment. This has been many years coming, going back to Supervisor John Avalos in 2008, doing some work on a public bank. and supervisors Sandy Feuer, as well as Supervisor Dean Preston, who established the reinvestment working group. And on that working group were representatives from the banking world, from the controller's office, from the treasurer and tax collector, And I also want to thank the San Francisco Public Bank Coalition, specifically Misha Steyer, as well as Kristen Evans and Sylvia Chee, Bodette Asaf, and Raina Tello, for all of their work in getting the state law to where it is established in 2019, that actually legalized public banking, and then getting it to where it is now. before us today so thank you all so much i also want to thank uh lafco executive director uh college samurai and city attorney's office supervisor wong

President Mandelman, colleagues, thank you. I do not believe creating a framework for a public bank is the right path for the city at this time. Right now, San Franciscans want us to take care of the basics. They are asking us to make government work better, to spend carefully, and to deliver results in their neighborhoods. They're asking me about mini reliability. They're asking how long it takes to get a permit. They're asking about the safety and cleanliness of our streets and the quality of our schools and whether our government's laws and policies are responsive to their actual needs. They're frustrated with City Hall promising big things and delivering gestures. They're watching us struggle with responsibilities we already have. We're managing a significant budget deficit. We're making hard choices about which services to fund and which programs to scale back. We're asking our city departments and partners to absorb cuts. In a moment like this, asking voters to commit San Francisco to potentially running a financial institution is asking for trust the city has not yet earned. A public bank involves decisions about deposits, lending, credit, regulation, and risk management. Those decisions carry real financial consequences. They demand institutional discipline, insulation from political pressure, transparency, and deep banking expertise. Our city's track record shows that meeting those demands is harder than it sounds, even for institutions designed with the right intentions. Public banks have a long history in this country. They have been tried for two centuries, and most did not last. The one that survives in North Dakota depends on state-funded deposits fed by oil revenue and an entire state economy to lend across, conditions San Francisco could not replicate. The banks that failed tended to fail the same way. They lent on political direction rather than on repayment. And when those loans went bad, it was the public that ended up bearing the loss. We also should ask whether there are lower risk ways to achieve the same goals. San Francisco has community lenders, credit unions, nonprofit loan funds, and other financial partners doing work in this space. They're lending right now to the small businesses, immigrant entrepreneurs, and affordable housing developers we want to support. Before creating a new public financial institution, we should look at whether we can better strengthen the institutions already doing this work. A commitment of the scale calls for a clear picture of how it would be funded, how it would operate, and how it would be held accountable. That picture is not there yet. I do not support going in this direction. I want us to focus on the basics of good government and on earning the trust a commitment like this would ask of us. Thank you.

Supervisor Mahmoud.

Thank you, colleagues. I just want to speak in very affirmative support of this legislation and this ballot measure for a couple reasons. One, there's a shot clock on being able to institute this. This is about maintaining the option for San Francisco to create a public bank in the future. There is a state deadline that is coming up, and this is not about funding that infrastructure today. It's about allowing for the optionality for us to fund it in the future. So I don't view this as a trade-off between our current budget and our current priorities. This is about investing for the future for when we are in better circumstances that we can invest in that. And if we don't pass this, we lose out on that opportunity that has been afforded to us by the state. Second is the benefit of this is actually that this is going to support our existing institutions. The way the public bank is structured is that it will help support existing credit unions and actually partner with them and administer the funds through those entities. Because if you talk to small businesses today, if you talk to immigrants, if you talk to people of color, if you talk to the unbanked, one of the primary challenges that they face is access to capital. There's access to capital to start a business, access to capital to buy a house, access to capital to live day to day, paycheck to paycheck. And the problem is predatory loans at high interest rates that if you are at the low income or if you are a small business, especially starting out, that is all that is available to you in the private markets. So the benefit to the optionality to a public bank to support our existing credit union infrastructure is that we allow for an infrastructure that can lower interest rates to provide a public competitive good to in turn create a market that benefits all San Franciscans. And so that's why I think this charter amendment is common sense. It's about an investment in our future, creating the optionality and the economic diversity and options for those who need it, especially on an issue such as affordability, which is top of mind for every San Franciscan and is not going to get better anytime soon unless we make those investments today for the solutions that we need tomorrow. And that's why we're voting in support.

Supervisor Walton. Thank you so much, President Mendelman. I just want to state that my constituents are asking about home loans. They are asking about business loans. They are asking about ways to access capital that are not always available to everyone. our constituents are asking for opportunities to thrive business owners and developers are looking for financing and this is very much an issue that has been brought to us by the public So I hope before anyone takes a position against, they actually know what we're doing with this charter amendment and not getting talking points from someone that doesn't understand what we're actually doing here. This charter amendment and what it does will actually take time to even get to public bank status. The narrative that a public bank does not align with the priorities of San Franciscans is false and fabricated. This is an important step for a city that has historically been on the forefront of success. So the fact that other municipalities have not been successful, that does not apply to us here in San Francisco. Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you, President. I also wanted to weigh in in support of this legislation. I think, as my colleague, Supervisor Mahmoud stated, this is about the framework in meeting the deadline that we're up against, not funding and not spelling out the governance that will come. It is the framework for how we're going to do that, and I fully support it. I also just wanted to underscore that notwithstanding having CDFIs and lending institutions that are nonprofit and many, many for-profit institutions, in May of this year, Wells Fargo Bank entered a very large settlement for racial discrimination. Discrimination against black people in lending, people who had perfectly good credit scores and would have otherwise bought homes with mortgages that they could not get because of the color of their skin. And because of that, we still see great disparities in lending for no financial business reason against women, against people who don't have proper documentation, against all sorts of human beings. that could be thriving economic actors in our society, that we could advance our values and also a smart business decision. So I think that we are headed in the right direction. I think San Francisco has always been at the forefront of things that people copy later. I do agree that we should be judicious and also be responsible in our investment, but I do totally support and have co-sponsored this legislation, and I want to thank Supervisor Chen and Supervisor Fielder for all the work they've done.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the item.

On the motion to continue, item 10 to July 7, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter. Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton.

Aye.

Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Wong, no. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. And Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. There are 10 ayes and 1 no, with Supervisor Wong voting no.

The charter amendment is continued to July 7, 2026. Madam Clerk, let's go to our 2.30 PM special order.

Yes, it is now time for the recognition of commendations for meritorious service to the city and county of San Francisco.

And I would like to start by inviting Rob Reiter to come up. This is another bittersweet one, folks. Today we are presenting a special commendation to Rob Reiter, the building manager of San Francisco City Hall, who is retiring at the end of this week after more than two decades of service to the city and county. As all of us fortunate enough to work here know, City Hall is more than another office building. It is a national historic landmark, a civic cathedral of unparalleled beauty, and the stage on which this city has marked many of its greatest moments of joy and grief alike. Keeping it standing, functioning, and worthy of the people we serve is a responsibility that demands both technical mastery and genuine commitment to the public trust. For nearly 17 years as building manager, Rob Reiter has met that responsibility every single day. He was born and raised in Canton, Ohio. After earning a bachelor's degree in public administration and public policy and a Juris Doctor from Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, he moved to the Bay working in commercial real estate and high-rise building management. He came to San Francisco city government after spotting a real property officer job posting at the SFPUC on Craigslist. He applied, got the job, and served in that role from 2004 to 2009 when then director of real estate Amy Brown encouraged him to apply for the city hall building manager position. He has held it ever since. On any given day, Rob assists staff from our city departments with the daily logistics of life in this building and works closely with the Sheriff's Office to keep us safe and secure. He collaborates with the City Hall Preservation Advisory Commission to safeguard the building's historic integrity, including overseeing the application of the Tunamec coating that gives the dome its iconic gold appearance. Rob has never sought the spotlight, but his accomplishments speak for themselves. He led the effort that earned City Hall LEED Platinum certification in 2015, a designation from the U.S. Green Building Council recognizing the highest standard of energy and environmental performance, making City Hall the oldest building in the United States to receive it. He oversaw the installation of the dynamic exterior lighting system that each night transforms the building's facade into a living expression of San Francisco's values and celebrations. Serving under five mayors, he's managed City Hall through events of local, national, and international significance. many of us will remember Rob most for the countless building tours he has provided to mayors, visiting dignitaries, supervisors, staff, and visitors. He has a wealth of knowledge about this building, its architecture, its history, and all the stories embedded in every beam and sculpture and inscription. All of us who've made the trip up to the dome, to the top of the dome with him, know that he performs his duties with the enthusiasm of someone who never stopped being awed by this place. Rob, Amy Brown was right, and San Francisco is better for the years you have given us. On behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, we thank you for your service, congratulate you on your retirement, and extend our gratitude and congratulations to your family. your wife, Deborah, your sons, Noah, Benjamin, and Mateo, your granddaughter, Danny, and your parents, Paula and John. As you start this next chapter of your life, know that the folks here are going to miss you very, very much. And as evidence of that, they're already putting themselves in the queue. I'm going to let my colleagues speak first, and then Sally Orth, the director of real estate, also wants to say a few words. Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Manaman. Rob, I just want to thank you for your responsiveness, for your service, but mostly for always making sure that any request was addressed in a timely manner. You really do get things done so that we can operate seamlessly, and so I want to make sure that you know that I appreciate you, my entire office appreciates you, and congratulations on your retirement.

Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Mandelman. Rob, you know, you're one of the people who there's a handful of people who I recognize just for over the years. It's a reminder of how long I've worked in this building and how much I have confidence and trust and just the professionalism of people who serve this building. And I share your love and awe of this building, having worked here for so long. And congratulations on your retirement. I will miss you. Sally Orth.

Thank you, President Mandelman, and good afternoon, board members. So I just wanted to say a few words on behalf of the real estate division, and we wanted to extend our appreciation to Rob for his many years of service as City Hall's building manager. His dedication has always been rooted in one thing, the people who work and rely on this building are his top priority. Whether it was supporting elected officials or tenant departments, building staff, or the many visitors who come to this historic landmark every day, Rob approached each request with patience, pride, and a sincere desire to solve problems. And importantly, he understood that City Hall is not just a landmark, it's a workplace, but it's also a community. And he genuinely wanted to do his best for everyone who walked through these hallowed halls. So Rob, thank you for your steady commitment and the care that you brought to this building and to the people who visit it every day. So we're grateful for all you have done. We look forward to celebrating with you later today, and we wish you all the best in your well-earned retirement.

Rob Reiter, the floor is yours.

Thank you, President Mandelman and members of the board. I thank you very much for the commendation and for your recognition today. It has been an honor to spend the last 22 years serving the city and county of San Francisco, both during my early years with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and for the past 17 years as building manager of City Hall. While managing our civic facilities has been a rewarding responsibility, the most meaningful part of my career has been serving the people of San Francisco and working in partnership with the dedicated teams across our city government. And amongst that dedicated team, I would be remiss if I didn't thank my staff, Lori Mazzola, Eric Nelson, and Howard Wong, and our whole labor team. I couldn't have done it without them. It is truly a team effort. I wanted to, again, thank you for this honor, for your leadership, and for this memorable send-off as I begin my retirement. Thank you.

It's OK.

Next up, District 2, Supervisor Sherrill.

Thank you President Mandelman. Call me in there. Colleagues, to close out Pride Month, it is my honor to recognize Lloyd Haddad and Keith Wicker. Lloyd and Keith, will you please come up to the lectern? Now Lloyd and Keith are the owners of two, well really three, but two, three sites, two businesses.

Two businesses, four sites.

Two businesses, four sites. And not only am I lucky to call them their business constituents, I'm lucky to call myself a customer. As the owners of Capricorn Framing and Walter Adams Framing, It is my honor to commend you both for your business leadership, your philanthropy, your civic engagement, and just overall service. to San Francisco. Now, Lloyd is originally from El Paso, Texas, and Keith is originally from Baltimore, Maryland. And both found their way to San Francisco, Lloyd in 1999 and Keith in 2005, where they built a life and a business together. Lloyd founded Capricorn Framing in 2006, bringing an engineering background that shaped the shop's precision-focused, conservation-driven approach to custom framing. Now Keith joined the business in 2014, adding his own background in aeronautical engineering, woodworking, and aviation. He's a retired Army helicopter pilot instructor and a former KTVU Channel 2 news pilot. Together, Lloyd and Keith have built Capricorn into one of the Bay Area's leading conservation framing studios. working with artists, collectors, interior designers, and families on everything from archival mounting to complex shadow box design. In 2023, they expanded their work through shared ownership of Walter Adams Framing, now a legacy business, growing their footprint to additional locations across San Francisco while holding to the same preservation standards Capricorn was built on. They recently opened a new production facility to support that growth. Now, this year also marks Capricorn Framing's 20th anniversary, two decades of craftsmanship, innovation, and community engagement here in San Francisco. And when I went to Capricorn and met with you, Lloyd, to present the certificate of honor for that anniversary, I felt so welcome to be in your space, but also to be in your brain as you explain to me the intricacies of custom framing and the care and the thought that you put into every work of art. And by that, I don't mean what's inside the frame. I mean the frame. I also learned that you, too, see your neighboring frame shops not as competition, but rather peers, truly a testament to your business value of supporting community. That really will stick with me. When someone comes in who would be a better customer for the frame shop down the street, we send them there, and they do back and forth. That attitude is what makes San Francisco fabulous, and thank you. Lloyd and Keith have long extended their craftsmanship into philanthropy, supporting organizations including Art for AIDS, Southern Exposure, the Denali Foundation, and Creativity Explored, along with groups advancing mental health, wellness, equity, and LGBTQ plus visibility. Keith, a military veteran, has also made support for fellow veterans central to the couple's giving, carrying forward the same values of teamwork and looking after the people beside you that he learned in service. Lloyd, Keith, your personal and professional partnership has been defined by inclusion, generosity, and a commitment to giving back to this city. And on a personal note, I also want to congratulate you two, who I have learned will be getting married in September in the Presidio. I'm so excited for both of you for this celebration of your love and, frankly, elated you're choosing to tie the knot in District 2. In all seriousness, on behalf of the entire Board of Supervisors, thank you both for everything you have given to the city's artists, to the business, and to the community. Congratulations on this honor and helping us close out Pride Month here at City Hall.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sherrill, thank you so much for the kind words. When we started our business, one of the things that we wanted to bring was the small business community in San Francisco, which is so strong. And like you said, we view many of our businesses around us as peers, not competitors. And the attitude of San Francisco has always fostered that kind of feeling. So thank you very much for the commendation. We're very excited to get married after 13 years. So thank you very much. This is really a very great honor. We were very pleased to get the announcement and surprised. And we will do our best to continue to uphold the strong feelings of small business support and the LGBTQ community here in San Francisco. Thank you.

Thank you.

District 4, Supervisor Wong. Thank you, President. Colleagues, today I'm proud to recognize the vet supporting. Could you come up? I want to recognize Vet Supporting in honor of PTSD Awareness Month and their important work serving veterans and their families in our community. For many veterans, returning home from active duty is not a simple transition. The structure, shared mission, and strong bonds of military service can be difficult to replace. Veterans may find themselves navigating benefits, new careers, family life, and personal goals without the familiar support system they once had. Vet Supporting was founded to help veterans through the challenges of transitioning from military service to civilian life. The work began by providing peer support to veterans participating in San Francisco's Veterans Justice Court. And today, they continue serving as a hub connecting veterans and families to community resources and through the Veterans Administration. Through mentorship, social re-engagement, education around earned benefits, and peer support, Vet Supporting helps veterans rebuild positive social structure, develop healthy routines, and reduce isolation. The work carries forward the spirit of the battle buddy system, making sure no veteran feels left behind. I also want to recognize Jason Chittivong, president and founder of Vets Supporting a Marine Veteran and a past commissioner on the San Francisco Veteran Affairs Commission. Jason's service spans advocacy, wellness, housing, and veteran-focused programs. And through Vets Supporting sailing initiatives, he helps create opportunities for camaraderie, healing, and renewed purpose. That same spirit is reflected in Vet Supporting's partnership with Wooden Boats for Veterans, which uses sailing, restoration, teamwork, and shared purpose to help veterans and their families reconnect, build skills, and rediscover inner strength. And I want to thank Will Cuevas, who serves as the Chief Financial Officer and on the Board of Governors for Vet Supporting. Will served in the Marine Corps and is very passionate about continuing public service for veterans in our community. His dedication is a reminder that service does not end when the uniform comes off. And in honor of PTSD Awareness Month, we commend Vet Supporting, Jason, Will, and all those working to help veterans find support, purpose, healing, and community after service.

Would you like to say a few words? Yes, we do appreciate recognizing PTSD month. We all actually met at San Francisco State. Post our military service, we decided to use our benefits and attend college. There was a need for a community. There was a need for outreach for those of us transitioning, particularly those of us that come from a combat background. Jason, myself, other members, Sean Scharf, and Nicholas Rusanoff, who's here, all bonded within this Vets at SFSU organization. Post our college career, we decided to continue this service to the community. And we just really appreciate it, because PTSD doesn't always have a face. It could hide behind a smile, unbalanced work-life balance. It could hide behind crying. A lot of things. And the fact that we're recognizing this, we are greatly appreciative to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Supervisor Wong. Thank you very much.

I just want to quickly thank all the support group here, Supervisor Allen Wong and Board of Supervisors, and my foundation of support group, Jenny Perez and Nicholas Rusanoff.

District 6, Supervisor Dorsey.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, as we close out Pride Month today, I am honoring a remarkable young queer leader, our outgoing District 6 Youth Commissioner, Gabby Listano. Gabby was born and raised in the Tenderloin and now lives in the South of Market neighborhood. She attended the Presidio Knowles School in Soma before going on to Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory. She grew up in a family of organizers, the kind of household where you learn early that you don't just complain about problems, you show up and you do the work to fix them. And that's a lesson that clearly stuck. Former Supervisor Matt Haney first appointed her to the Youth Commission when she was just 12 years old. And by the time I had the chance to make my appointment to the Youth Commission, Gabby's reappointment was a no-brainer. She has now finished her sixth term on the Youth Commission, and she has served as its chair. What strikes me most about Gabby's work is how personal it is to her. She organized the LGBTQ plus task force because she understood what was at stake for youth in our schools in a scary and uncertain time with ongoing setbacks to our rights, as we saw even just this morning with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on trans inclusion in sports. Gabby fought for San Francisco's LGBTQIA plus coalition on safety funding. She pushed to create real safe spaces for LGBTQ plus youth. And she worked to get better, more honest health curriculum in the San Francisco Unified School District's classrooms. She leads with strong conviction and puts her whole heart into her work. In fact, she has shown that same heart and conviction in everything that I have seen her take on. She championed Vietnamese language access across city departments. She led the charge to restore legal services for immigrant families. She has been a strong voice for needed resources in the Filipino community. She was chosen as one of only two California delegates to the U.S. Senate Youth Program. And she co-founded the Young Leaders in Climate Action. Her outstanding civic achievements, together with her equally impressive academic record, apparently, earned her a spot at a school some of you may have heard of, Harvard University, which she will begin attending this fall to study environmental science and public policy. As we honor Gabby for all her civic accomplishments today, I think about the remarkable example she has set, someone who started at the age of 12, stuck with it, and turned that commitment into real change for the community she cares about. That kind of example doesn't just inspire admiration, it inspires action. She has shown an entire generation of the young San Franciscans who know her how much can be possible when you take civic engagement seriously, and today our city is better for it. As she heads off to Harvard, I know I speak for so many of the San Franciscans who've known and had the opportunity to work with her. She will be deeply missed. Our city will feel her absence, whether they know her or not. But I have no doubt that Gabby will carry everything she's learned out into the world and continue to make us proud. Knowing this isn't a goodbye from San Francisco, but the beginning of a next chapter, Gabby, We thank you for all of your service to our city. We wish you the very best in your endeavors to come. And we're excited to see all the ways you're going to continue to make us proud by making a difference. Congratulations. And before we hear from Gabby, I know we're going to hear from Joy Zahn, but I believe I have a colleague who also wants to say something. So let me hand it off, if I may. Supervisor Melgar.

Thank you. First, I just wanted to say, Supervisor Dorsey, this is an outstanding choice for recognition of accommodations. So Gabby, we're going to miss you. On the risk of embarrassing you further, you are one of our longest serving youth commissioners ever. And what an outstanding youth commissioner you have been. In addition to all the things that my colleague, Supervisor Dorsey, listed in terms of your achievement, I just want to acknowledge what a mentor and leader you have been for others. In the Youth Commission, in all the district youth councils, you have been just a beacon of leadership and forthrightedness. You have led the way on so many different issues, and you have been that sort of moral compass for so many. I also want to say, as Supervisor Dorsey, we don't recognize young people enough in these chambers. So I'm really glad we're doing this today and that we're recognizing Gabby for her outstanding contributions to leadership and to having youth voice in our city. I also want to put in a good word for Dorsey. and the staff at the Youth Commission for all of the work that they do and for supporting Gabby and the other youth commissioners in making sure that we are hearing their voice and taking their perspective into account when we make decisions. So, again, Gabby, I cannot wait. to see what happens when you come back to San Francisco after college and what you're going to do. I know whatever it is that you take on, you will be awesome at it. You will be a rock star. And thank you for everything you've done for our city so far. So far, because I know you're going to come back and do amazing things. Thank you.

Thank you. I will just add my own congratulations, Gabby. It's been great to work with you and invite up Joy.

Really quickly, thank you, supervisors, for recognizing our chair, Gabby Listana. She's been wonderful. We have record-breaking applicants, 156 applicants this season, and so many of them quote Gabby as an inspiration as to why they're being civically engaged and they want to apply to the Youth Commission. And the Youth Commission these six years have been a third of her lifetime. And I know she's going to come back into this building and to continue to advocate for young people and her communities. So thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Joy, for the kind words. And thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for this incredible honor and for your steadfast support for San Francisco's youth, along with the amazing kind words from Supervisors Melgar and Mandelman. As a queer commissioner and chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission, I am especially honored to accept this commendation at the tail end of Pride Month. Pride has always been defined by resistance, from the Compton cafeteria riots and the tenderloin to the current fight against anti-queer and anti-trans legislation across the nation. And I like to think that my commissioners and I have brought that same grit to the fight for this city's youth. One of my proudest accomplishments that was mentioned earlier on the commission was re-establishing the LGBTQ plus task force in 2023. Through our work, we were able to advocate for safer conditions and shelters for queer and trans youth and funding the safety initiatives of queer-serving youth organizations. Most importantly, however, at least for me, we were also able to show that young queer voices deserve a seat at the decision-making table. So I would like to thank the District 6 office for genuinely believing in me and reappointing me three times, and also just supporting our advocacy for D6 youth the entire time you have been in office. I would also like to thank my fellow youth commissioners for their unwavering dedication to this city, and my youth commission staff, Joy Zan, Joshua Rudy Ochoa, and former director Alondra Esquivel-Garcia for being incredible mentors who have truly changed the trajectory of my life and teaching me how to speak serve my community. Also, thank you to the amazing community organizations and advocates who have supported our mission for the past 30 years. Lastly, thank you to my family and friends for always supporting me. I cannot wait to see more diverse young voices in City Hall. Thank you again.

All right, with that, Madam Clerk, let's go to committee reports. Please call item 11.

Item 11 was considered by the Land Use and Transportation Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, June 29th, 2026 and was recommended as a committee report. Item 11, this is a resolution to add the commemorative street name Art Agnos Way to the 500 and the 600 blocks of Connecticut Street in recognition of former Mayor Art Agnos for his decades of dedicated public service and commitment to the people of San Francisco.

Please call the roll on this item.

On item 11, Supervisor Mandelman?

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Wolton? Aye. Wolton, aye. Supervisor Wong? Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan? Aye. Chan I supervisor Chen Chen I supervisor Dorsey Dorsey I supervisor Fielder Fielder I and supervisor Mahmoud Mahmoud I there are 11 eyes Without objection the resolution is adopted Madam clerk, please call item number 12 Item 12, this item was considered by the Rules Committee at a regular meeting on Monday, June 29th and was referred without recommendation as a committee report. Item 12 is a motion to amend the Board of Supervisors Rules of Order by amending Rule 1.3.3 in-person and remote public comment, to conform the rule with the public comment changes, to add a new rule, 1.3.4, remote public comment disruption policy, to adopt a policy for the Board of Supervisors to handle disruptions to remote public participation, adding a new rule 1.3.5, disorderly conduct by public commenters, to codify the procedures around disorderly conduct by public commenters, and to amend rule 3.8, public comment at committee meetings, to prohibit committees from limiting the total amount of time for public comment on an item.

Chair Walton. Thank you so much, President Melvin and colleagues. You may see that this was forward here without recommendation. This is something that is being forced upon us from the state legislature to take remote public comment. Some of you may remember that, and by the way, I am 100% in providing access to the public. But some of you may remember that during the pandemic, we had to sit here for hours sometimes at 2 in the morning and listen to people call in that were not constituents, that were from other states and from other countries. And one, I certainly believe that if we cannot receive donations and support from people from other countries, we should not have to sit here and listen to them talk about the business of San Francisco. And this has been brought to us without... opportunity for us to set rules and ways that we can do this to make sure that it is for constituents and folks who have a real reason to call in to a board meeting and so definitely not supportive of this the state legislature does not even take remote public comment for their meetings so how can we be forced to do something that is They don't even do. It just behooves me. So I wanted to let you know why I came with that recommendation. And I think it's terrible that this is being forced upon us. Supervisor Sherrill.

I can't agree with my colleague's remarks more. 100% up and down the line, I agree with you. If I didn't think this would cost us money on the inevitable lawsuit, I would vote against it just to I probably can't say what I wanted to say there. But it's hypocrisy, exactly like you said, Chair Walton. And quite frankly, I think this is going to not increase public participation. I think this is going to end up backfiring and decreasing public participation. For the regular people who have lives and jobs and children and obligations and are just trying to weigh in on the city that they live in to make their lives better and to help everybody else, they're going to get pushed out by all the wackadoodles around the world who decide to opine because they have nothing better to do. It is hard enough. for us to provide the appropriate access to enough San Franciscans to actually get the job done. And now to be forced to open this up to every Yahoo around the world who wants to opine with absolutely nothing to do with their lives is wrong. This is encouraging us to explore ways to shut down public comment. This is exploring us to look for workarounds and loopholes. This is encouraging us to buy some kind of technology system that crashes every 10 minutes just so we can shut out these weird voices. And when we talk about access to government, when we talk about promoting voices like the Youth Commission, like people have traditionally been marginalized, I can imagine that this is a, quote, thoughtful way to do that, but it is the opposite. It is stupid, and it is hypocritical. I am so reluctant to vote yes, but I also don't want us to get sued and just cough money down the drain. So, yeah.

With appreciation for Supervisor Sherrill's use of Yahoo and wackadoodle in the same comment, Supervisor Chan.

He also said stupid.

So I'm like, wow.

Well, I mean, I think if Supervisor Walton and Supervisor Sherrill are in agreement, this must be not good. This sounds terrible, so I think if I may do my due diligence, is that if I may, through president Mendelman is to ask the deputy city attorney to help me understand better understand, uh, what will happen in the events that this, uh, this board voted against this, uh, legislation and cause supervisor already indicated potential lawsuits, but how would that actually work? Sure.

Good afternoon, Supervisors, Deputy City Attorney Brad Russey. This requirement comes from Senate Bill 707 that was approved by the legislature last year, which is an amendment to the Brown Act, which governs public meetings in the state. And I think what could happen is A member of the public who tried to call into a meeting as they will have the right to starting in July 1 and did not have that ability to do so, they could bring a claim against the city under the Brown Act. And we could be forced to, you know, the court could grant an injunction. The person could be entitled to attorney's fees. So that's sort of a path.

I see. So essentially, it is not that we will be sued by the state legislature or the state government, but essentially is then it creates a liability and a potential cause for the members of the public based on the state Brown Act requirements and sue the city and county of San Francisco in violation of the Brown Act.

Yes, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. As President Mendelsohn knows, I'm actually not as against people calling, because I do think it provides an important venue for people who cannot come in person, pregnant women, people with disabilities, however. As you all very well know, my patience for nonsense is very short. I appreciate that we have some clarification here about what the presiding officer can do during a meeting to stop the abuse of public comment, to abuse a public official, or target somebody. And I am wondering how much flexibility we have to further that in addition to what we have right now in terms of what we saw as Supervisor Walton was alluding during the pandemic. numbers of this body being targeted because of their religion, because of their sexual orientation, because of their gender. We've seen it all. And so I am wondering, I think I like this language and it's clear, and how much flexibility do we have you know, in the future to sort of put order and to protect the members of this body or other bodies when people are being abusive.

Thanks for the question. So the state law that we're talking about here provides discretion to, or basically it provides that members of the public, including those who call in, if they disrupt the meeting, there is a basis to remove them from it. So we would need to look, it's kind of on a case-by-case basis. When someone comes in person and gives public comment of the type that you're discussing, there are ways that we can redirect them. We can have the clerk can read a statement about anti-harassment and the board doesn't adopt those comments. So it's really going to depend on a case-by-case basis. And we can look at amending the rule in the future if it becomes a problem and where the line is there. But there are First Amendment issues here. There are public access under the Brown Act issues here. So it's a little bit tricky.

Understandable, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in notwithstanding First Amendment rights. What is the definition of disruption? And if the same individual comes to every meeting and says, say, anti-Semitic things or misogynist things, what flexibility do we have under the Brown Act to limit their access? So I have all kinds of questions about what we can do with our own rules of orders to comply and also allow us to conduct business and also protect each other. But I look forward to the conversation. Thank you.

Supervisor Sherrill.

I want to double click on what Supervisor Melgar said there. I think those are the voices, you know, that you mentioned at the beginning, like a pregnant woman or someone with physical disability that would prevent them from being, those are the voices we need to prioritize. We need to create room for and create access for. And I think all your questions and the subsequent answers that sadly there's not enough clarity around, which I don't mean as a criticism, I assure you, that is, where my anger around this comes from and why I think the people who do need access to this remote public comment, I believe that they will end up getting crowded out and getting even more frustrated than we do. And that is a disaster.

Supervisor Chan.

Thank you. I want to credit our clerk and her team for doing a good job for remote public commons, accommodating those with disabilities. We have that during budget. So I'm very grateful for during the budget public common day. So I'm really grateful for that. I do have question about whether it's possible within this framework from the state legislature or Brown Act amendments that we could narrow the remote public commons to again like is there a way to narrow it to to residents and people that have disabilities and require accommodation and then to allow people who are out of states to also have remote public commons, remote public commons, but through written records? Is there such thing that we could do so or is it too much?

Supervisor Chan, unfortunately, there's nothing in the state bill that would allow the board to limit where the people are calling from or to weed out people who are not actually in San Francisco or California.

But is there a clear, sorry, I just want to, just one follow-up. Like remote public comments, is it defined remote public comments as through voiceover or remote comments? I mean, written public comments is also remote public comment.

The bill requires either, it requires an electronic form of either calling in or having like a Zoom type meeting. It could be the board could do either you could have a call in line or it could have a zoom function So I think the clerk has already planned for how this is going to work Thank you Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, President Mandelman. And I just want to just state to colleagues that during committee we try to ask questions about alternatives. Every issue and concern you bring up, trust me, we've talked about it. Because I don't completely agree that it says we can't set our rules in our own way. policies on how we deal with public comment because we already do it for individuals with disabilities we already make accommodations for folks who reach out and so i don't see why we couldn't do the same thing it's not interpreted that we could by advice of counsel but we definitely brought up Several different ways to try to address this And I know the clerk Thank you so much to your team also has really looked into this to see what possibilities exist and so I think that we will of course continue to work to see what we can do to Make sure that this is is actually beneficial to our constituents, but I We are pretty much forced to vote for this I mean, I really did not want to support it and really wanted to vote against it in committee but this is one of those things where It will cost us a lot of money to go against this and I don't think this is the time I

to the members if I could address this issue? Sure. Please, thank you. So the city attorney has interpreted that this remote public comment would occur during Board of Supervisors meetings, not your committee meetings. And so we are looking into legislative systems which could really handle remote public comment, but specifically to encourage individuals to sign up in advance. The way we're going to handle the public comment is we'll take those who are here in person first. as people sign up from Monday or Tuesday to the board meeting, we'll then bring in the remote callers in the order that they signed up. We will have an opportunity to move ADA up if that is their request. We are working hard to figure out how we're going to handle language access with the remote public system. Ultimately, we are not requiring people to give their names. But if you're calling in on a regular basis, we know individuals typically work with our office who are serious commenters. But you do not have to give your name. And those individuals, if they just come to the meeting while it's occurring, we will pipe you in. We worked with the Deputy City Attorney, Brad Russey, to make sure that we are providing multiple informational redirections, that if you are not speaking within the Board subject matter jurisdiction, we will ask you one time during your speech. Otherwise, we will move on to the next caller. So that is essentially how we intend on handling this. I will, as I continue to do work with our, our general counsel, Brad Russi on what is appropriate to remove someone from public comment. If they're speaking about someone's beard or using a foul language about an individual's in a protected class. Otherwise, members of the public are free to critique your policies, your votes, your legislative items, your clerk. Perhaps if they're critiquing you to the board as a whole, that has also been allowed typically. But if they get personal with you and we cannot redirect them to the board as a whole, that has also been a requirement that I move on to the next caller or next person in line. But I will, again, be very careful if I am doing a public comment during your board meeting not to minimize anyone's rights for what they are entitled to otherwise say to you. And Mr. President, this begins next Tuesday. So we will be putting notices on our website, having it at the clerk's office, and making sure that those who are answering the phones in our office and providing information to each of your offices, the telephone number to call in if individuals want to sign up in advance.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, for that robust discussion. Unless anyone needs a roll call. I will say that we will take this item, same house, same call, without objection. The motion is approved. And Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call for introductions.

Thank you, Mr. President. You are first to introduce new business.

All right. I have a resolution, an ordinance, and an in memoriam. First, I'm introducing a resolution of support for Assembly Bill 1573, the Unseen and Unheard Housing Act authored by Assemblymember Bryan and co-authored by Assemblymember Stephanie, which would add survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking to the definition of target population under California's planning and zoning law. Current law requires cities and counties to identify and plan for the supportive housing needs of specified target populations in their general plans as part of the housing element. Jurisdictions are required to determine the number of people in each target population and factor their housing needs into the overall housing element along with analysis of all the programs available for such population. The current list includes veterans, the elderly, people with disabilities, individuals exiting institutional settings, and others. Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking are not currently on that list. AB 1573 would fix that. This matters because survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking have unique needs that are not currently being met. Among the broader homeless population, survivors are disproportionately represented, remain unhoused for longer periods, return to homelessness more frequently, and are less likely to obtain permanent housing. By including survivors as a target population in city and county's housing elements, this bill would encourage greater understanding and attention to their specific housing needs, a meaningful step forward as we work to support a particularly vulnerable population. I want to thank the Women's Housing Coalition, and especially Roma Gai, for bringing the issue and this legislation to my attention. I want to thank Renil Bajoi in my office for his work on the resolution. Secondly, I'm introducing legislation to raise the city attorney's delegated settlement authority from $25,000 to $100,000, modernize our claims process, and reorganize provisions regarding settlements. The current $25,000 threshold has not been adjusted in 40 years, not even for inflation. A $25,000 settlement today is a relatively small sum, yet it still triggers the same full board approval process as far larger and more consequential matters. Currently, plaintiffs who've reached agreement with the city are waiting, sometimes for months, while routine small value settlements work their way through the approval queue. Judges have been critical of how long this process takes. It makes sense to cut down the time it takes to process smaller value settlements by increasing the delegated settlement threshold. In practice, most settlements under $100,000 are approved without substantive debate. From 2020 to 2025, 40% of settlements that came to the board for approval fell between $25,000 and $100,000. This change would remove those routine items from the board, freeing up the city attorney's time, city staff time, and the board's own time for more consequential work. This legislation still protects oversight. The ordinance includes an annual reporting requirement that gives the board and the public full visibility into settlements between $25,000 and $100,000, disclosing the settlement, the amount, the department involved, and the general subject matter of the claim. Transparency is preserved while eliminating unnecessary delay. The legislation also takes the opportunity to modernize our claims process, remove provisions that have become obsolete, and reorganize the settlement framework so it's cleaner and easier to administer going forward. I want to thank Brad Russe from the city attorney's office and his team for bringing us the legislation. I also want to thank Maeve Skelly in my office for her work on it. And finally, I would like to thank my co-sponsor, Supervisor Alan Wong. Finally, colleagues, I'm asking that we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Glory Diao Delary, former owner of Delary's Salon in Glen Park and beloved sister, wife, grandmother, and mother to Marion Delary. Glory died on June 21st, 2026 at the age of 92 with her family by her side. She was born in the Philippines on November 15, 1933. In 1956, she crossed the ocean and moved to California, dreaming of building a new life and a home. That same year, she married Santiago Delary, and the two settled in and moved to an apartment in the Haight-Ashbury, where they had their first son. A few years later, looking for a larger home, the family discovered Glen Park and fell in love with its shops, gardens, and tight-knit community. They decided to move there. Glory earned her cosmetology license at Marinello School of Beauty in 1960 and began the career that would become her calling. After the move to Glen Park, she rented a small storefront on Diamond Street and opened the doors to Delary's Beauty Salon on November 6, 1968. Over the years, Delary's Beauty Salon grew from a salon into a neighborhood gathering space. Clients came not only for her talent as a hairstylist, but for comfort, conversation, and the warmth of her presence. Glory would make house calls to clients who were ill or homebound, ensuring they could still receive beauty services in the comfort of their homes. Through her volunteer work with Look Good, Feel Better, she styled wigs for women undergoing cancer treatment. One day, Glory's family noticed a forced sale sign on a building on Chenery Street. The owner spoke with Glory and agreed to sell the property to her on one condition, that she visit his home weekly to shampoo and style the hair of his elderly homebound wife. Glory agreed without hesitation, and in 1975, Delaria's Beauty Salon moved into their permanent current home at 660 Chenery Street. In 1981, she enrolled her daughter, Marion, in the same beauty school she had attended decades earlier. Glory would eventually pass down the business to Marion. Glory took care of people, her clients, her family, and her community. In 2012, when the Cheese Boutique faced eviction, she offered them support and space. She took care of her aging husband until his death in 2006 and opened her home to two older sisters when they needed care. Her legacy of service, compassion, and generosity lives on through her family and in all the lives she touched. I want to extend my and our board's deepest condolences to Glory's family, especially her extraordinary daughter and longtime caregiver, Marion. Rest in peace, Glory Delary. May your memory be a blessing. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Milgar.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I want to announce a drafting request that I've made to our city attorney's office to amend our rent ordinance to respond to a trouble pattern that we have been seeing once again in San Francisco. Recently, we have seen a growing number of news stories about tenants facing outrageous rent increases or dubious claims of violating their leases when the real motivation seems to be to push long-term rent control tenants out. It's even happening to tenants who are fairly well off. So when the tenants union approached me with examples from their counseling clinic, I agreed it is time that we do something legislatively. San Francisco has been through tech booms and seen intense speculation at work before. Back in the 1990s, and I'm giving away my old age, I worked at St. Peter's Housing Committee, which later became Casa Just Cause. It was at the forefront of the gentrification fights during the first dot-com boom. We saw far too many long-time tenants in immigrant families face displacement, not because they couldn't pay their rent, but because landlords wanted different, higher-income occupants. As the AI economy accelerates, we're seeing that pressure return with rising rents and homes selling for a million over asking price. In times of high rewards, speculators will push the envelope of what is legal. The tenants union folks tell me that many of these eviction attempts are likely unlawful, but it still requires tenants to find the lawyers in time, take on the anxiety in order to stay in their homes, and many will just give up. It is not enough to build more housing and hope that prices will come down. We have to do that. We also have to protect families here now from the waves of speculation in unscrupulous landlords. So I'm working with knowledgeable tenant attorneys to tighten the definition of evictable offenses, including... the now vague definitions of nuisance, hoarding, and to strengthen what constitutes harassment under the rent ordinance. There are few deterrents for lawyers who assist in trumped up breach of contract claims since they will get paid regardless if they fail. So we can also help curb that practice. I want to thank Supervisor Cheyenne Chen following her great work on the Senate Protection Ordinance for her early co-sponsorship, and the rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Milgar. Supervisor Sautter. Submit. Thank you, Supervisor Sherrill. Submit. Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Submit. Submit. Thank you, Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, today I am introducing a resolution to designate and commemorate Noriega Street between 19th and 33rd Avenue as a sunset healthcare corridor. For decades, the sunset has had limited access to hospitals, urgent care, and major healthcare systems, meaning many residents have had to travel outside the neighborhood for care. But along this stretch of Noriega, community providers stepped up. Chinese hospitals, Sunset Health Services, NEMS, All American Medical Group, local medical groups, dentists, optometrists, pharmacies, and wellness providers have built a corridor of affordable, culturally competent, and linguistically accessible care close to home. This designation and commemoration honors and supports the clinicians staff, and community institutions that have served the Sunset families for decades and affirms our commitment to expanding healthcare access on the west side. It will also encourage more traffic and support local businesses. I want to thank the healthcare providers and community members including NEMS, AAMG, and Chinese Hospital who has helped support and bring this idea forward and look forward to your support. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong. Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution in support of the license renewal for KGO-TV, also locally known as ABC's Channel 7. With this resolution, we're urging the Federal Communication Commission to quickly review and approve the station's application based on the station's decades-long track records of service, devotion to the local community, and compliance. Since 1949, KGO-TV has been reliably serving the residents of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and the Bay Area community. For over 75 years, the station provides invaluable news coverage, investigative reporting, and community-centric programming, as well as public safety coordination during the emergency that keeps millions of residents informed, prepared, and connected. Last month, KGO-TV filled a broadcast license renewal application, sorry, last month, KGO-TV filed a broadcast license renewal application with the Federal Communications Commission after they abruptly accelerated the application timeline for KGO-TV and seven other ABC-owned stations. And this acceleration is well ahead its originally scheduled 2028 deadline. Broadcast journalism. particularly those that is independent, is protected by our constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of the press and should remain and continue to remain independent from any political interference. The FCC needs to evaluate the renewal application based on the station's merits and longstanding compliance. A failure to renew KGO-TV's license would create a significant gap within the Bay Area media landscape, eliminating a trusted source of local news, culture, information, and emergency coordination that residents and all of us, including the policymaker and city government, rely on. I would like to commend KGO-TV's dedicated team of journalists, Production crews and staff who have been serving the public's interest every day, I urge San Franciscans to participate in the public comment process by submitting their support online at publicfiles.fcc.gov before the July 29 deadline. And in addition, colleagues, I would like to adjourn today's meeting in honor of Mr. Stanloss Chan, who passed away on June 10th, 2026, at the age of 86. Through personal example, Stanley, Stan Laws, Stanley Chan, inspired and instilled in his children so much, so much kindness, selflessness, and positivity. There are countless times in which Mr. Chan with dry friends and relatives home after a visit to his friend, and families, and it's a testament to his generosity and compassion. Often, the rides would be an hour each way, but it was never in doubt that it was the right thing to do. Mr. Chan also demonstrated a tremendous sense of humor and used his charm and wit to make a lasting impression on everyone he met. As a waiter in Chinese restaurants for most of his life, Mr. Chan transformed his charisma into a strength and superpower to provide for his family. His son Dominic got to work alongside him as a waiter during his summers in college and got to see firsthand how charming and hardworking Mr. Chan was. And as Mr. Stanley Chan got older, he transitioned to a job with the Brooklyn Public Library in Sunset Park. and absolutely loved that job, as he could show his humor and charm to the public without worrying about tips as wages. It was a good-paying union job as a member of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, District Council 37, and he was able to secure a modest pension because of it. After he retired at 78 years old, he learned within a year that he had Parkinson's disease, Mr. Chan's family expanded their home to lovingly provide care for him and his wife, who passed away in 2021. In latter years, the Parkinson's escalated, but he always kept his sense of humor. The care team at Onlock, where he got his health care, always remarked how funny he was despite the challenges of his disease. He spent his last days in San Francisco and had a profound impact on his family and is survived by his children, Andy, Betty, and Dominic, and his wife, Sarah. And the rest I submit.

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, I was very concerned this weekend seeing reports and video footage of San Francisco police clashing with San Francisco residents and visitors participating in pride activities in two separate incidents. One, Transmarch, and two, an event known as Stud Alley. The images of police in full tactical gear harken back to the Compton cafeteria riot of 1966 in which trans women and drag queens were protesting police brutality. I have questions about the decision making to deploy officers in full tactical gear. any other de-escalation strategies used before deploying officers in tactical gear, and I'm asking in this letter that the controller estimate the response of SFPD in regular and overtime hours into both of these incidents. I'm submitting a letter of inquiry to gain more clarity into the policy, context, and timeline of these events, and I'm requesting that the department and controller submit their responses by Tuesday, July 14th. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Mahmoud. Submit. Thank you. Mr. President, seeing no names on the roster, that concludes the introduction of new business.

Let's go to public comment.

At this time, the board welcomes your public comment if you'll all line up on the right-hand side of the chamber along the curtains. You may speak to items 15 through 19, the items on the adoption without committee reference part of the agenda, and other general matters not on the published agenda but must be within the board subject matter jurisdiction of the board. All other agenda content has been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where the public comment requirement has occurred. The podium that you're standing in front of, Mr. Wright, I know you know, but others may not. It has a timer on it. Please monitor the timer. You'll hear a soft bell. That means you have 30 seconds left to wrap up your comments before the two-minute bell. Thank you. Mr. Wright, welcome.

I want to object to funds being hijacked. and misappropriated, stolen out of Proposition C. San Francisco voters voted for Proposition C to help the most vulnerable people in very low and low income brackets, people with a combination of both mental and physical disabilities to secure their housing. and not live on the streets in the city and county of San Francisco. And I don't appreciate this board and the mayor taking those funds and having millions of dollars being used by people in high income brackets up to $125,000, $30,000 a year and using those funds to pay for babysitters of those high income bracket to pay babysitters while they're pregnant working and take care of their kids, babysit their kids when that money's supposed to be spent for the people that's homeless that need housing and services. That's a misappropriation of funds and a violation of the American Disabilities Act because the people who need help are disabled, combination of both mental and physical disabilities, and need services and people in wheelchairs. I object to that. You're just the opposite of Robin Hood. You do this administration after administration after administration. You're just the opposite of Robin Hood. Robin Hood steals from the rich and gives to the poor. You steal it from programs that's voted for by San Francisco voters for the poor and have it enjoyed by the rich. That's disgusting. That's a disgusting example that you're putting down. And about this $200. And $50 million that you're taking away from the hospitality house, you're not only making people lose their jobs, but you're denying services to the people who they work and serve in the low-income bracket income. Thank you, Mr. Wright.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Hello, supervisors. My name is Lucas Illa. I'm with the Coalition on Homelessness. Today I want to speak to the two-year anniversary of the landmark US Supreme Court decision, Grants Pass versus Johnson. The question before the court in Grants Pass was whether a municipality's practice of jailing a person who erected a structure in the public right of way, even when the municipality had no shelter to offer them, amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The court found in a 6-3 decision that this criminalization was not cruel and unusual. And after that ruling was announced, San Francisco electeds, many of whom make up this board today, celebrated that ruling as common sense and as a crucial step in offering flexibility to San Francisco in addressing encampments. And oh, how it did. Mayor Lurie has touted an 85% reduction in tents, all while omitting the number of people he successfully sheltered or housed in that effort to throw people in jail for erecting said tents. He, of course, has no idea how many. That is not the metric that matters. I want to highlight, though, an often overlooked aspect of the Grant's past decision. The three Democrat-appointed justices dissented. And leading the charge was the liberal lion, Sonia Sotomayor, who read her dissent from the bench to show profound disagreement. She opens with this, quote, sleep is a biological necessity. not a crime for some people sleeping outside is their only option the city of grants passed jails and finds these people for sleeping anywhere in public at any time including in their cars if they use as little as a blanket to keep warm or a rolled up shirt as a pillow for people with no access to shelter that punishes them for being homeless that is unconscionable and unconstitutional San Francisco is thousands of shelter beds short. There are over 10,000 people needing extremely low income or completely subsidized housing. To criminalize them is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

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

Hello. Dear Board of Supervisors, I appreciate the returning supervisor's inquiry into what happened to trans people this Pride weekend. And so I prepared this comment before that inquiry was shared. I am deeply saddened and enraged by SFPD's violent, aggressive, outsized assault on trans people during our march, supposedly over paint. and what happened in the alley supposedly over permits. And I am deeply saddened and enraged by your complicity and silence per usual. This is the best trans people get. Trans people are fleeing their states and coming here for a refuge, and this is the best you have to offer them. Also, this comment just keeps getting deleted, so let's see if I can read it here. Oh, deleted off of the mayor's social media. The mayor and SFPD are targeting trans and queer people. Why do I say that? One, SFPD's violent outsized assault on the Trans March. Two, the mayor's silence on said assault. Three, SFPD did it again Saturday night. Kicking the state senator out of the Trans March made our community safer because we are not safe around a man who abused his power to target and silence anti-genocide and pro-Palestine activism. He targeted Dr. Rupa Maria, sorry for mispronouncing her name, got her fired from UCSF and had to flee the country to Ireland after all the hate and harassment. And the smear campaign the state senator directed her way. This is the same man who has also been targeting homeless, poor LGBTQIA folks who are often black and brown. He targets poor immigrants with his vending laws. He mourned the closure of a Nordstrom before acknowledging Banco Brown. The state senator is currently making bank off transphobia like every other transphobe. Meanwhile, the Chronicle has a piece about how we compromise San Francisco's respectability for MAGA, like why do y'all want MAGA's approval so badly? But San Francisco SF gets to make life materially worse for trans folks without one critical think piece in the Chronicle or any news outlet.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Steven Torres from the Castro LGBTQ Cultural District just once again speaking in support of item 15, the resolution to recognize the Coors Boycott Commemoration Day, which took place this past Friday, June 26th. It was a great event in attendance by the San Francisco Labor Council, Alameda Labor Council, IFPTE, the Teamsters. It was emceed by our Drag Laureate Persia. Supervisor Chan was there. And I think it was a really, for the Cultural District, it was really important because some of the organizers, which the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, And Labor felt that it was important that Labor walk from the Coors commemoration event to the Trans March later to show that solidarity between Labor and the LGBTQ community is still vital and critical. And unfortunately, the events of this weekend have truly underlined that, that this coalition, this alliance still is critical. as we face the same things that we faced in 1966, that we have faced in 1979, that we faced in 1989, which is needlessly escalated brute force by the San Francisco Police Department against the queer community. Thank you.

Thank you, Stephen Torres, for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Good afternoon, BOS. My name is David. I'm here in my capacity as a union steward and exercising my First Amendment rights. As a SEIU 1021 union steward for the mental health chapter at SFDPH, I want to raise awareness of an issue that gets overlooked when city officials evaluate line items in the budget to determine which programs get funding or not. I am talking about the mistreatments of frontline staff by middle and upper management at DPH and the lack of accountability for their misconducts that distorts program performances and wastes taxpayer monies. This happens frequently to union members, including myself, but I want to share one notable example. My friend and mentor, Jason Albertson, a licensed clinical social worker who tragically passed away from an overdose last year because of the stressors from managerial abuses. I heard rumors from those in the field that the reasons for Jason's being stripped of his clinical duties and being assigned administrative tasks were ridiculous and capricious. It could have been resolved at the lowest level, but management chose not to. I want the BLS to remember Jason for more than his career. I want you all to remember that when middle and upper management at DPH mistreats the frontline staff for arbitrary issues, buries the staff in the weight of the bureaucracy that is DHR, and needlessly delays union efforts to peacefully resolve labor issues, they are misleading city officials on program performances. And yet, these are the same people who are reporting program performances and recommending program cuts. I hope in the future there will be policy discussions by the BLS that will allow union members to annually evaluate their supervisors. By doing so, the frontline staff will know that their voices are being heard when city officials examine future program performances. Thank you.

I want to submit this to her. Yes, we'll come collect that from you. Thank you, David, for your comments. Welcome to our next speaker.

Thank you. My name is Eva Crisanti. I am the writer and editor at MarinCountyConfidential.substack.com. And I would just like to recognize the last speaker's courage. It takes enormous courage for someone to speak up who's an SEIU member. And I think you could have given him the grace of looking at him as he was speaking. So I'm a little disappointed. I am speaking on the day of a momentous decision at the US Supreme Court. that would not have been possible without the case of Wong Kim Ark. And I think it's important to note that that case was based on the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was produced out of San Francisco. My mother was blocked from entry into the United States for the entirety. My mom, her two sisters, and my grandmother were blocked from entering the United States from Japanese-occupied China for the entirety of the Japanese occupation that killed 20 million Chinese. We never hear that number. We now have another mayor of San Francisco from Congregation Emmanuel. And as Fred Rosenbaum has explained in many of his research books, he's a professor emeritus at UC Berkeley. Unfortunately, Congregation Emanuel played a great role in the passage and promotion of a great deal of anti-Asian legislation, and I'm very excited that Mayor Lurie may be able to address that finally. Lastly, I would like to bring your attention to your errant city attorney whose office has failed to get the San Francisco Police Commission to comply with municipal codes. They've been errant for nine years and six months. They failed to turn in the police commission minutes to the appropriate archives at SFPL. Why does this matter? If you look at the 1974 and 1976 minutes, especially the 1976 minutes. Thank you for your comments.

We apologize if we interrupt any speakers. We are setting the timer for two minutes. Thank you kindly. Welcome to our next speaker.

Hello, Board. Good to see you again. , rank and file steward with Teamsters Local 853, co-founder of the Coors Boycott Commemoration Committee. Really want to thank the Board today for, considering this resolution, the resolution celebrating the anniversary of the Corps' boycott and proclaiming June 26, 2026 as the Corps' boycott commemoration day in the city and county of San Francisco. My brother Steven, I think, already highlighted why this is so important, just speaking from the perspective of labor. You know, this history still lives in breeze in San Francisco and Northern California. And I really appreciate, uh, your time on this and I'm looking forward to your vote and solidarity. Thank you.

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

Board of Supervisors and Office Mayor of Daniel Lurie, the title of my speech today is Gumption Shoes to the Momentum. The voice behind the movie, GOAT, is done by Steph Curry. The theme is about achieving legacy by thinking bigger and through the use of teamwork. Thinking big is certainly a great ingredient for success. In Pixar's cinematic animation, Anton Eagle concluded that not everyone can be a great artist. However, that one person can be a great artist. However, I came here not to speak about greatness. I'm here to speak about teamwork. Teamwork, to me, sounds like a platitude. The word in itself is a combination of platypus and attitude. It is flat. It is like asking someone to go on first date. It's be yourself. It's boring. But it's obviously a fundamental ingredient to achieve grandiose goals. And that's why I want to tell you I have a set of skill set that enables me to be a great team player. First, I'm a music coordinator for GLIDE. I'm a very polarized artist because I could sing Cantonese national anthem in GLIDE Memorial. I also work in Chase Center doing guest experience. I also sing the national anthem in English version. For that, I will issue an invitation for the Board of Supervisors and Mayor to speak on glide as well as to visit the Chase Center. Thank you for your time.

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

Hi, I'm Jessica Pesico. First, thank you to the board for listening and working to restore our funding for education, health care, and unhoused services and more. Thank you. Second, the Hunters Point Shipyard. This Superfund site has a documented history of falsified soil testing by the Navy's contractor, Tetra Tech, leading to a $97 million federal lawsuit, or settlement, I'm sorry, and prison time for two of its supervisors served. I'm asking for transparency on cleanup sites, independent verification of contractor data, and real-time, publicly accessible air quality monitoring. I'm also asking for accountability for the harm that was caused at that shipyard, including a DPH-funded health survey and expanded services, particularly health services, for residents nearby. Third, Dahlia, the city's housing portal. A District 10 search shows that only one entry is in the housing lottery for District 10. I'm asking the mayor's office and anybody who's listening if we could add some more housing onto that area for District 10. I'm also asking if we could please change the website so the income Eligibility is in plain dollars. For example, $0 to $64 is the income range instead of up to 55% AMI and the other income level. Finally, San Francisco has no SCORE office. Small business mentors are only in East Bay. I'm asking the board to work with SBA to bring one back, ideally to District 10, and to advocate for... help for our small businesses. Thank you.

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

RICHARD S. Good afternoon, President Mandelman and board members. My name is Richard S.T. Peterson. I come to talk about the word progressives. That's kind of why I'm wearing my coat that I got when I first got to San Francisco in 1964 as an adult. Picked up a few buttons along the way and learned that Being a progressive is more than just being out there, but actually meeting with the people of your community, getting together, and yes, enjoying the summer of love. I'm sure you probably vetted me. If you haven't created a dossier, I'll give you a brief rundown. I'm 83 years old. I went to Hastings School of the Law, which is now San Francisco University of California Law. I practiced in mostly federal courts and have been consciously representing the entrepreneurs, the artists, the inventors, and all those people that made the West Coast great. Progressive is more than just a word. Progressive really talks to all of us. And I think that you better start realizing, and here's where it gets a little hot, that progressive is not the same as a New York Mondami progressive. There is a danger sweeping the nation where progressive suddenly means you have to be socialist. And that's definitely not the truth. So please, when you think of progressive, think of all the people who have contributed to this city, not New York.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board during general public comment? All right, Mr. President.

Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, please call the for adoption without committee reference agenda items 15 through 19 together.

Items 15 through 19 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.

Could you please call the roll on items 15 through 19 together?

On items 15 through 19, Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter. Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill. Aye. Sherrill, aye. Supervisor Walton.

Aye.

Walton, aye. Supervisor Wong. Aye. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Fielder, aye. And Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motion is approved. Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

They're an entry report, Mr. President.

Could you please read the in memoriams?

Yes, today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals. On behalf of President Mandelman for the late Mrs. Glory Delauret. On behalf of Supervisor Chan for Mr. Stanislaw Chan.

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

We do not, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We are adjourned.