Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the September 1st, 2026 regular meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Present.

Mandelman, present. Supervisor Milgar. Melgar, present. Supervisor Sauter? Present. Sauter, present. Supervisor Sherrill? Present. Sherrill, present. Supervisor Walton? Present. Walton, present. And Supervisor Wong? Present. 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 Ramutu Shaloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, will you join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? On behalf of our board, I want to acknowledge the staff at SFGov TV today. That is particularly Kalina Mendoza. They record each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. Madam Clerk, do you have any communications?

Thank you, Mr. President. The Board welcomes your attendance in person here in the Board's Legislative Chamber, located within City Hall in Room 250 on the second floor. And when you're not able to be here, the proceedings are airing live on SFGOV-TV's local cable channel or live streaming at sfgovtv.org. And as of July 1st, pursuant to SB 707, The full board will take remote public comment. During the public comment, we will prioritize those who have joined us here in person and then hear from those on the remote caller system. The board has also approved a rule to address disorderly public comment. Members of the public, please keep your comments germane to the matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board. Any comments that contain personal attacks, harassment, or discriminatory remarks directed to a city employee including board members, are outside the scope of this body and shall be redirected. And failure to immediately redirect those comments will result in that individual's forfeiture of the remaining time. And we will transition to the next speaker. Please remember to address your comments to the board as a whole, not to individual members. And if you would like to submit your public comment in writing, You can send 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, 94102. And lastly, if you would like to make a reasonable accommodation for a future meeting under the Americans with Disability Act, or need to request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office two business days in advance by calling 415-554-5184. Thank you, members. Mr. President.

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

Approval of the June 30th, 2026, July 7th, 2026, and July 14th, 2026 board meeting minutes.

Colleagues, could I have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? Moved by Chen, seconded by Cheryl. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

On the minutes as presented, Supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chan. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chan, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud. Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman.

Aye.

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

Without objection, the minutes will be approved after public comment as presented. Madam Clerk, let's go to unfinished business. Please call items 1 through 22 together.

Items 1 through 22 are... 22 ordinances that amend the Planning Code to designate the following properties as landmarks and makes the appropriate findings. Item 1 designates the Alexander Adams Home, located at 1450 Masonic Avenue. Item 2 designates the Bourne Home, located at 99 Divisadero Street. Item 3 designates the Charles Katz Home, located at 1200 Dolores Street. Item 4 designates the Charles L. Hinkle Home, located at 740 Castro Street. Item 5 designates the De Eurost Home, James C. Hormel Mansion, located at 181 Buena Vista Avenue East. Item 6, landmark designation for the DuBose Triangle, Greek Revival Home, located at 2173 15th Street. Item 7 designates the Early Haight-Ashbury Farmhouse, located at 11 Piedmont Street. Item 8 designates the Elliott M. Wilson Home, located at 1335 Guerrero Street. Item 9 designates the Engine Company No. 44, the Adams Van Heusen House, located at 3816 22nd Street. Item 10 designates the Guerrero Street Double Stick East Lake Home, located at 1415 and through 1417 Guerrero Street. Item 11 designates the Henry Street Row Houses located at 191 through 197 Henry Street. Item 12 designates the Holy Innocence Church located at 455 Fair Oak Street. Item 13 designates the John J. Clark House located at 210 Douglas Street. Item 14 designates the Mission Congregational Church located at 3689 19th Street. Item 15 designates the Phoenix Brewery located at 552 Noe Street. Item 16 designates the Richard Spreckles Mansion, Buena Vista Studios located at 737 Buena Vista Avenue West. Item 17 designates the Second Church of Christ Scientist, located at 651 Dolores Street. Item 18 designates the Tietz-Benneke House, located at 657 Chenery Street. Item 19 designates the William Shaughnessy Home, located at 394 Fair Oak Street. Item 20 designates the Fernando Nelson Home, located at 701 Castro Street. Item 21 designates the laying house located at 199 Carl Street. And item 22 designates the engine company number 33 located at 117 Broad Street.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please call the roll.

On items 1 through 22, Supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? Aye. Sauter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, the ordinances are finally passed. Please call item 23.

Item 23, this is an ordinance to accept an irrevocable offer of public infrastructure associated with the Hunter's View Hope SF Project Phase 2 to dedicate said public improvements for public use for public street and roadway purposes, to accept for city maintenance and liability purposes to establish the official street grades, the sidewalk widths, and the public right-of-way widths, to also amend Ordinance Number 1061 pertaining to the regulation of the width of sidewalks, to establish the official sidewalk widths on Catalina Street, Fairfax Avenue, Ingalls Street, Innis Avenue, Ironwood Way, and Middle Point Road, to accept an offer of dedication for Phase 2 easements, to delegate authority to the Public Works Director to accept the Phase 3 public infrastructure, to include authority to take all Phase 2 and Phase 3 actions, to authorize the director of property to execute deeds and easement agreements as specified, to accept a public works order to recommend various actions in regard to the public infrastructure improvements, and to affirm the CEQA determination and to make the appropriate findings.

I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the ordinance is finally passed. And Madam Clerk, please call our new business. Please call Item 24.

Item 24, this is an ordinance to amend the Public Works Code to allow development projects to satisfy street tree planting requirements through payment of an in-lieu fee or providing alternative landscaping to exempt necessary dwelling units from street tree planting requirements to eliminate appeals to the Board of Appeals for hazardous tree removals undertaken by city departments and commissions, to amend the administrative code to specify a separate account within the adopted tree fund to receive in lieu fees for street tree requirements, to amend the planning code to update street tree applicability requirements, to amend the business and tax regulations code, to prescribe timeframes for the hearing and decisions on appeals of certain street tree removals to the Board of Appeals, to affirm this equal determination and to make the appropriate findings.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Does anyone need a roll call on this? OK. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, Supervisor Sautter.

Make sure this new system is working. Thank you, Board President. I will be voting against this item today. And I do think it has evolved to a better place. I appreciate the committee members for their amendments to get it to this point. But on the whole, I think this has an equal chance of maybe improving some things as it does detracting from what we really should be focused on here, which is a healthier tree canopy and stronger neighborhoods. Specifically, I'm worried about the fact that if we don't plant these trees at the time of construction and development, that we may never get them planted again. And I like that this does potentially open up some flexibility. with where we're planting trees because that's something that we are constrained on right now. But all things said, I would much rather see us put our time and energy towards the things that I hear on a very, very regular basis from constituents. First and foremost, that is the maintenance and pruning of our existing trees. Every few days our office here is about, a particular tree that a neighbor is worried about. And we have very little recourse. We were years late in actually doing our first round of maintenance and pruning of our existing trees. So there's work that needs to be done there. And then ultimately, putting our energy towards finding a more sustainable source of funding for new tree planning. So that's where I'd rather see us put our energy rather than this. And for those reasons, I'll be voting no.

Supervisor Landis, Chair Melgar.

Thank you so much. This item came out of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, and I will be voting to support it. I just wanted to address a couple of the points that I have heard from many advocates who oppose this legislation and to explain why I'm voting for it. First of all, I wanted to thank my colleague, Supervisor Wong, for his work and his staff's work on this. I do think that it makes it easier for smaller property owners, mostly homeowners on the west side, to add those ADUs to densify their properties, which is what we want. But I also sort of really want to reject some of the talking points about how this will negatively affect the tree canopy, I think the underpinning of that argument is the mistrust of government, that somehow government will not do the work as effectively as a private sector. And that, colleagues, is a conservative Republican talking point. And I have none of it. I will have none of it. These workers are represented by Laborers Union 261. They're out there doing the work every day. do a really good job in addressing the racial disparity in tree canopy between wealthier neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods. And I think, are we perfect? No. Are we done? No. But I think that having a plan and centralizing it and having it be a goal of our department is a really good thing. The second thing that I want to address is the numbers that have been thrown out in the press. It's been reported that it costs between $4,000 and $6,000 per tree to plant in San Francisco. I don't know where those numbers come from. As we all know here, by law, government cannot charge more than it costs to perform a function. And it costs San Francisco about $2,600 per tree. And most of that cost, about $2,000 of that $2,600 cost, is water for three years. because we take it upon ourselves to put it on a schedule to water those trees so that they survive. And frankly, the government, the local government, does a lot better job than the private developers who then sell and change ownership of developments that then go to someone else. So while we still are responsible for compliance of that, I think government does a much better job in doing that than the private sector. So for those reasons, I do think that this is a good step. I think it'll help us plan, be strategic about where we're planting and keeping those trees alive, and I will be supporting this legislation. Thank you.

Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman. Colleagues, there are a few reasons why I'm voting no on this legislation. First, this legislation makes it more difficult to protect the existing tree canopy by removing the appeals process for city trees slated for removals. In 2018, Cayamita Cuatro was slated to have up to 78 trees removed, and the right to appeal led to a negotiation between and constructive settlement that saved approximately 45 mature trees on the Latino Cultural District's main corridor and added 100 more throughout the cultural district. This will be more difficult in the future with the removal of the appeals process. Second, by allowing developers in lieu of payment for mandated tree allocations, This legislation may inadvertently put at risk neighborhoods that are underrepresented in canopy and green spaces. And finally, I appreciate the environmental justice lens that my colleagues have included, an important step to recognizing that low-income communities have higher environmental health burdens and lower tree canopies that can help counter these factors. However, depending on the environmental justice determination measures used, neighborhoods like the Mission might end up being deprioritized. For these reasons, I'll be voting no on this measure.

Supervisor Mahmoud. Colleagues, I want to thank the sponsors for bringing this legislation forward, and in particular, the in lieu fee option for smaller projects, I believe is a great step to make building the types of projects envisioned by the family zoning plan a little bit easier, while also generating more funds for tree planting and watering citywide. I do want to acknowledge that I also did have misgivings about the legislation coming directly from experience in District 5, particularly around the appeals process. Earlier this year, residents in the Lower Haight and DuBose Triangle learned about seven mature ficus trees on Waller Street that had been slated for an emergency removal as public safety hazards. Hundreds of residents in our district contacted our office, and more than 800 people signed a petition condemning the removal. My office worked with Public Works to secure a secondary review by the acting urban forester, which resulted actually in four of the seven trees being preserved. The remaining three still move forward with removal as determined to be necessary. That's why in committee, I introduced an amendment to allow for hazard tree removals to still be appealed to the director of Public Works, and this amendment was passed unanimously. We want public works to get things right the first time, but in this situation a second look by a qualified forester prompted by the public changed the outcome for four mature trees and didn't hold up that three needed to come down. Now any tree subject to hazard tree removal can still get that second look. Hazard removal still moved quickly and no appeal to the Board of Appeals, no rehearing, no delay in taking down a tree that poses a risk to real danger to the public and our workers. What it preserves is a chance to catch an error before a mature tree comes down. So I want to thank Public Works and the Mayor's Office for working collaboratively with Sam Logan on my team for improving this legislation. And based on this amendment, I'm comfortable moving forward on this item and will be voting in support.

I would like to invite a representative of Public Works to maybe come forward and answer a question or two. I had a good conversation with the Director Short earlier today. And the purpose of this is to get some of this stuff just on the record here. I'm a former member of the Board of Appeals. It hurts me to take jurisdiction away from the Board of Appeals. From my conversation with Director Short, it sounds like the way in which these appeals and the number of these appeals to the Board of Appeals has increased significantly with the publication online of information about proposed tree removals. And I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about what it has meant in the past to have delays around some of these removals where failures have happened pending the hearing and talk a little bit about the administrative burden of these hearings. But it is the contention of your director and your department that it has grown over time and that it is an impediment to doing some of the other things around trees that Supervisor Sautter suggested maybe we ought to be doing.

Yes. Thank you, Supervisor. For the record, my name is David Moore. I'm the superintendent of the Bureau of Urban Forestry. Uh, 20 years ago, I earned a bachelor's of science in forestry. I've been a certified arborist for probably 18 years. And like many of my colleagues who are also certified arborists, I'm also certified in tree risk assessment, which is a very specific type of training for managing the risk of urban trees. And I like to start by providing a background of what that method is just for context purposes. Tree risk is measured by what are the chances of something bad happening based off of a defect of a tree times what are the chances of something being underneath it when that happens times what's the magnitude of that consequence. And a tree in the forest, even if it's totally dead and about to fall over, if there's nothing around it except for forest, it actually poses almost virtually no risk. So we have to calculate, is there pedestrians underneath it? Is there fixed assets, property? Is there traffic underneath? Are there other facilities, infrastructure that could be impacted by a tree risk? Which makes our job very difficult, because trees naturally close the loop When they fall down in a forest, they would just upcycle the nutrients and become more forest. But in a city, people don't have a very much smaller tolerance for that type of impact, especially if it affects them personally. So a city of our 125,000 street trees need to be managed for risk purposes. And we do this with a very small number of inspectors that are tasked with taking in service requests as well as routinely inspecting the trees. A tree hazard may be identified in a tree. And the first step is, can it be mitigated? And that could be done through pruning, through removing deadwood for pruning back branches, shaping the tree for structure, or moving the assets that it could strike underneath it. Say it has a lean in one direction, maybe more for private property. You could say, OK, well, I'm going to remove the things that are in that direction. And you've managed the risk. Preservation is the number one goal in tree risk management. And you take as many measures as you can to limit the chances of the tree damaging something. As a very last resort, would a tree be slated for removal? And that means that we've exhausted reasonable management techniques that could abate the risk, whether the assets underneath it can't be relocated, the site conditions can't be changed, and there's no management technique that would fully save the area from being at risk of a tree falling on it and hurting something or killing somebody. So... In the grand scheme of 125,000 trees, it's rare that a tree really does come down and impact something. But if it were to impact a person or their property, it's highly consequential to that person or that property. And it can lead to injury, fatality, or costs to property damage, as well as legal consequences, which are all shouldered by the taxpayers. So it's our responsibility to use our methodology, our trainings, industry standards, and best management practices to limit those risks and manage the urban forest. And then when a tree needs to be removed, the goal is to replace it with another tree that will begin its lifespan, as unfortunately, all these trees do have a finite lifespan. And it's our job to try to keep them in the sweet spot of being good neighbors to the rest of us. So I wanted to provide that as context and subject matter expertise supervisory. And I'll continue with your question. It's not common that we post a tree for a hazardous tree for removal and it gets appealed. The exact number is documented, I believe, in the files. But off the top of my head, it's a handful of times over the past few years. However, there have been enough cases in recent years where a hazardous tree went through the appeals process, which we fully respect the Board of Appeals and the function they serve. But in the face of a hazardous tree, which We can use our methods to make our best estimates and calculation of the risk factor, but there's going to be X factors that are totally out of our control, like the forces of nature. A big gust of wind, something inside the tree is biological that couldn't be detected. And despite our expertise, that tree could still fail suddenly without any warning. And when it does, if there's a high consequence to what's underneath it, and a high consequence of the impact, it could cause severe damage. And there's been a few cases of that in recent years, which has made us cringe in thinking, OMG, it's our responsibility to manage these hazards. And it's happened enough times that the administrative process goes at its own pace, and that has led to us not being able to remove hazardous trees while they were marked for removal, while the appeals process was going on.

I'm sympathetic to that. I think one of the things that's a little troubling or very troubling is that in the last 10 years, as the city's assumed responsibility for street tree maintenance, we've seen more of them coming out than going in. and I spoke with Director Short about that as well. She believes that that era is coming to an end, that you've done the work of getting rid of many of the trees that needed to be taken out, and that you have the resources and are going to have the resources to be adding at a faster clip than you are removing. But can you talk a little bit about why you and she believe that?

Thank you for asking that question. I'd be glad to answer that. With 125,000 street trees that have never been managed as a population before, or some of them at all. There's a lot of backlog. In a forest, the trees don't need to be pruned. They all grow up because there's trees on every side, so they grow towards the sun. They don't have branches that go like this. In a city, they're single trees, and they grow like this. So they need to be headed back. They could have crossing limbs. They could have branches growing into a building or into a muni line. and all these things that are very complicated with all of our very complicated infrastructure around them. The first pass around all the trees is going to identify a lot of trees with irreparable defects because they hadn't been maintained. We haven't done any mitigating measures for so many years. They may have been added to a list of tree removals. Then just the amount of work that has to go through the first pass of tree pruning slows down the process. By the end of this calendar year, we expect to complete the first round of street tree pruning through Street Tree SF, which we're very proud of. I also want to say that we've added an assistant superintendent, Charlie Murphy, who is at the helm of the inspection unit and the arborist unit. We're scaling up with our contracts. We're working with our colleagues in public works to increase the capacity for implementing contracts. And Prop E funds this program. We do have some vacancies. And some of those things are outside our control. But we're making wins despite our vacancies in increasing our capacity. We're also grouping our tree pruning in a more logistically streamlined way, which is going to build in operational efficiencies. And we hope to make the next pass of street tree pruning closer to a five-year range. And we are pretty confident about all the work that's going into it will lead to that result.

And you have additional resources for new planting that you have not had over the last few years?

For planting, we have sought out state and federal funds for grants. We have a $12 million Inflation Reduction Act grant for tree planting. We just qualified an RFP through a competitive process to a service provider who is starting to plan There's going to be 3,500 trees total. Public Works already planted 500. So we are aggressively seeking additional outside resources to increase our tree planting goals, to get closer to the goals that are set by the Climate Action Plan. And in fact, we have a new workforce development grant that has, it's in the process of being signed today, that is going to be focused on filling 2,000 vacant tree planting sites. I know that there has been a big demand for this backlog of vacant tree planting sites to be filled. It's really hard to do it one at a time, so we put in a lot of work and planning to thoughtfully work with economies of scales to plant 2,000 over the next two years. And we hope that this will be the first phase and that we can continue at this pace in future years.

All right. Thank you for answering some questions. And you may sit down. All right. Thanks. Madam Clerk, please call the roll on this item.

On item 24, Supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. No. Chen, no. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. No. Fielder, no. Supervisor Mahmoud. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Sauter? No. Sauter, no. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. And Supervisor Walton? No. Walton, no. There are seven ayes and four nos, with Supervisors Chan, Fielder, Sauter, and Walton voting no.

And the ordinance is passed on first reading. Madam Clerk, let's go to our 230 Special Order Recognition of Commendations.

Yes, it's now time to recognize meritorious service to the City and County of San Francisco.

District 4, Supervisor Wong.

OK. May I have vet votes come up? OK. Colleagues, today I'm honored to recognize VetBoats for their extraordinary work supporting our veterans. And as we mark Suicide Prevention Month, we also recognize the vital role that community connection and a renewed sense of purpose can play in veterans' lives. VetBoats is a veteran-led organization that brings veterans together through therapeutic sailing, hands-on boat restoration, maritime skills, and camaraderie. Their programs give veterans an opportunity not only to learn and work together, but also to rebuild confidence, develop meaningful relationships, and rediscover a sense of purpose. For veterans living with PTSD and other challenges associated with their service, that sense of connection can be incredibly important. We know that suicide prevention is about more than intervention at a moment of crisis. It is also about making sure people have strong communities around them, places where they feel valued, understood, needed, and supported. That is what makes the work of VetBoat so meaningful. There is something uniquely powerful about veterans supporting other veterans. through a shared experience, whether sailing on the bay, working together to restore a boat, or simply spending time with people who understand they're creating the kinds of lasting bonds that can help combat isolation and strengthen resilience. And the impact extends beyond individual veterans. When we support the well-being of those who have served, we also support their families and strengthen our broader community. So today I want to thank everyone at Vets Boats for your service, compassion, and dedication, and commend you for helping veterans throughout the Bay Area find connection, purpose, resilience, and hope. And now it's my pleasure to welcome Matt, may I have a? Gettleman. Gettleman. Yeah. From Vets Boats to say a few words.

Well, thank you to the city of San Francisco and to the Board of Supervisors for allowing me to come up. Just a quick introduction. My name is Matt Gettleman. I live in District 4 at Seacliff. I work at Goldman Sachs downtown. And I'm also a veteran. So I went to West Point, served five years in the Army. So thank you again for having us. So what I'd like to say about the organization, just first and foremost, is it's founded by veterans for veterans. It's been around for 14 years now. And I think the biggest thing that I can say to the city and county is how Meaningful and impactful and we do have a large homeless veteran population as well as just veterans at writ large We work we work a lot with sorts of plowshares, which we know has a deep connection with the city and what I would like to say is just thank you and the work that we're doing is Demonstrated every single time we put veterans on the boat just some quick statistics I'm sure you guys are all well aware of Every 21 seconds, a veteran dies of suicide in the United States. And I think a lot of things, and you can say whatever you want about the wars we fought over the last 50, 60 years. But at the end of the day, a lot of the people that join when they're 18, 19, and 20 have really no idea what they're signing up for. And, you know, I think the biggest thing for them is really the camaraderie that they come home with. And that's really what we try to support, really cultivate community for them. And so I just, again, just want to say thank you. We are hosting our annual gala on the 11th of November at the St. Francis Yacht Club. We have the 31st Chief of Naval Operations that's going to be there as our keynote speaker. And it's going to be a great evening. if you want to learn more about our organization www.vetsboats.org we're always looking for volunteers to come on sales with us we sail at least twice a month and we usually have 20 or 30 veterans show up either from va facilities that we have partnered with in the city or in the surrounding communities. And just kind of the last piece of information, you know, for every dollar donated to Vets Boats, 96 cents goes directly to the veterans to put them on the water. So, again, thank you very much. My name is Matt Gettleman, and I really appreciate your time.

All right. Madam Clerk, let's go to roll call.

First on roll call for introductions is Supervisor Wong. But since he stepped out of the chamber, we'll go to Supervisor Chan, who is also. So Supervisor Chan, will you go first, please? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, it is my honor to introduce this resolution commanding KTSF, for 50 years of outstanding services to the Asian American community. KTSF began broadcasting in San Francisco on September 4, 1976, under founder Lillian Lincoln Howell's leadership. KTSF grew into a pioneer of multi-ethnic and Asian language programming in the United States. In 1989, KTSF launched the first nightly live Chinese language newscasts in Cantonese in the United States. In 1991, it added live Mandarin programming. For generations of Chinese-American families, these broadcasts have been vital connections to local news, community issues, and international events. KTSF has also played an important role in helping new immigrants and longtime residents navigating life in the Bay Area. Its reporting and public services programming have highlighted issues affecting Asian-American communities. provided valuable community resources, and helped ensure that important information reaches people who might otherwise be left out, giving them the information they need to participate fully in civic life of our city. As we celebrate KTSF's 50th anniversary, we recognize the journalists, the broadcasters, staff, and community members who give our communities an outlet for our stories. Thank you to my colleagues who have co-sponsored it to celebrate September 4th, 2026, as KTSF Day in San Francisco. And congratulations to KTSF for 50 years of extraordinary service, extraordinary leadership, and thank you for keeping our communities informed, connected, and be part of San Francisco's story. And the rest I submit. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I have one ordinance and one resolution for introduction. Today I'm introducing legislation to help stem the tide of San Francisco's eviction crisis. Evictions in San Francisco hit a 10-year high last year, and data shows that we are on pace for an even higher number of evictions this year. Nonpayment of rent is the reason behind over half of recent eviction proceedings and the true number is likely even higher as landlords are not required to report nonpayment eviction notices to the rent board. Eviction defense attorneys attribute the rise in evictions to an affordability crisis in San Francisco. Rents are increasing at record high numbers while a slow and challenging job market for working class residents mean many San Franciscans are living paycheck to paycheck with significant economic uncertainty. Today in San Francisco, landlords can evict tenants for being short any amount in rent. Landlords who want to take advantage of a lucrative rental market like San Francisco's can pursue eviction against long-time rent-controlled tenants who have minuscule one-time or accidental rent shortages. Often tenants do not even know they have outstanding rent owed due to a number of reasons, including that they've been charged hidden fees or highly variable utility bills without warning. In a representative sample of nonpayment evictions in San Francisco last year, around 25% of tenants were evicted for less than one month of the fair market rent for their unit. This is why I'm introducing legislation that will prevent landlords from evicting tenants who fall behind in rent unless the tenant owes them a portion of the rent, an amount higher than the fair market rent. The fair market rent depends on the bedroom size of the rental unit and is set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This is the same standard that is already utilized in cities like Los Angeles, Oakland, and Berkeley. Thank you to the Anti-Displacement Coalition, including the Eviction Defense Collaborative, for your work with us on this, as well as Deputy City Attorney Manu Pradhan and my legislative aide, Anna Herrera. I'd also like to thank Supervisors Melgar, Walton, Chan, Chen, Mahmoud, and Sauter for your early co-sponsorship. And I want to thank the mayor for his support as well. I look forward to your support in this legislation that will help tenants across our entire city. And today, I'm proud to announce a resolution declaring September 1, 2026, KALW Day in the city and county of San Francisco in celebration of the station's 85th anniversary. Since 1941, KALW 91.7 FM has been a fixture of Bay Area public media. It has kept justice, equity, and community storytelling at the center of its work while continually evolving to meet the needs of its listeners. KLW's history of innovation speaks for itself. It was the first station in the Bay Area to air programs like Fresh Air, This American Life, Snap Judgment, and The Daily, and the first to bring the BBC to Bay Area listeners, serving for decades as the BBC's station of record here in San Francisco. It's also the birthplace of 99% Invisible and Radio Ambulante, programs that build on the station's track record of nurturing new voices in a way that few stations can match. That commitment to new voices extends well beyond the studio. The origins of Ear Hustle trace directly back to KALW's volunteer program at San Quentin State Prison, a powerful example of the station's dedication to telling stories from places that are too often overlooked or silenced entirely. Today, KALW remains an essential and trusted source of news, music, culture, and community storytelling throughout San Francisco and the nine-county Bay Area. As we mark this 85th anniversary, we celebrate not just KALW's remarkable history, but look forward to the next 85 years of independent, community-powered journalism and music. Thank you to Supervisors Wong, Chen, Mandelman, and Walton for your early co-sponsorship. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. Supervisor Mahmoud? Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Mandelman?

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I am introducing an ordinance to make a minor adjustment to the planning code to extend eligibility for legal nonconforming rear yard structures to include those constructed between 2003, the current cutoff, and 2010. The change is motivated by the experience of two elderly disabled constituents in my district. Sam and Mar are retired mental health professionals. He a marriage and family counselor. She, a licensed clinical psychologist. They spent their careers helping others through crisis and grief. But now in their later years, both are facing their own physical and medical challenges. For the last 18 years, Sam and Mar have made daily use of a meditation room in their backyard. They built the room in 2018 to anchor their Buddhist practice. Its long sloped eaves and lantern-style roof follow centuries-old Japanese Buddhist architectural tradition meant to mark the passage into a spiritual space. Although Sam and Mar were told by their designer that a permit wouldn't be required for it, the structure narrowly exceeds the size limits for rear yard structures set in the planning code. In 2019, a disgruntled neighbor denied a permit of their own and, in the process of selling their home, filed an anonymous complaint. No one else on the block has ever complained about the structure, and letters of support for Sam and Mar have come from every adjacent or abutting property. Last year, recognizing the prevalence of long-standing, unpermitted rear yard structures in neighborhoods across San Francisco, this board passed legislation to legalize non-conforming rear yard structures built before 2003. This legislation would change that date to 2010 to accommodate Sam and Mar's meditation space and other similar non-conforming structures constructed before 2010. I want to thank Lisa Gluckstein and Elizabeth Wadi from the planning department for helping us find this solution. I want to thank Rob Kapla for the city attorney's office for his work and my aide, Ranil Bajoi, for his work. And the rest I submit.

Thank you, Mr. President. Supervisor Melgar. Submit. Thank you. Supervisor Sautter.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, at the beginning of this year, I asked the budget and legislative analysts to inventory and report on opportunities for using vacant or surplus city and public properties for housing and other public purposes. And at my request, the BLA has spent the past several months conducting a review of publicly owned properties across the city with the goal of identifying properties with potential for development, secondary uses, or joint development using specific evaluation criteria. They canvassed 30 city departments, agencies, and educational entities, including SFUSD and City College. They examined well over 100 properties representing approximately 6.2 million square feet of public land. They applied a high-level preliminary screening based on criteria such as being in poor or deficient condition, having excess land or low site utilization. This all gives us preliminary results for properties that warrant further evaluation. Now, we expect the full report to be published in the coming days, but I'm happy to share that there's a lot of substance in what the BLA found. Put another way, we're clearly sitting on a tremendous resource that we need to use better. For example, the report will show that there are 44 vacant or soon to be vacant properties that may warrant further evaluation for affordable housing or other development opportunities. And using specific sites, the report contemplates the number of units of housing that might be produced on vacant or underutilized land and shows that this number quickly reaches many thousands of new homes. The report also pushes us to be more thoughtful on how we organize our space, citing an example where SFUSD has administrative functions spread across eight different properties. Moving from this analysis to action will take further research and discussion, but most of all, it will take coordination and leadership. And the BLA report will clearly lay out why the current process, or lack of one, fall short. There's no true owner or vision for this process. Instead, it is left today to a piecemeal approach, and it is fragmented heavily by department. Now, the good news is that one city agency has opted for a more systematic approach to evaluating their real estate portfolio. The SFMTA, for example, through its joint development program is proactively seeking to identify properties to generate revenue, modernize transportation facilities, and support housing production. But that begs the question, why isn't this being done at every department or on a citywide scaled level? So with the BLA's land report on our underutilized properties being published in the coming days, I am today submitting a hearing request to discuss the BLA's finding and policy options with the Department of Real Estate, the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, and the SFMTA to report. It is clear that we need a citywide direction and coordinated long-term approach to leveraging publicly owned parcels to meet the most critical needs of San Franciscans. And I look forward to having this conversation and doing the work to chart a path forward. The rest I submit.

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

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I have one in memoriam. I am honoring the life and legacy of Vivian Ann Hopkins, a true daughter of San Francisco. Vivian was raised in Potrero Hill and graduated from Mission High School in 1970. She carried with her throughout her life the values she learned from her mother and grandmother. hard work, determination, integrity, and a deep commitment to community. Vivian built an extraordinary career spanning entrepreneurship, corporate leadership, nonprofit service, and public administration. She brought her talent for organizing, problem solving, and bringing people together to organizations including young community developers and the city and county of San Francisco. As project manager for SFShines, she helped invest in small businesses and revitalized commercial corridors while honoring the history and legacy of the communities she served. But Vivian's greatest impact cannot be measured by a title or a job description. She had a gift for using her knowledge, relationships, and influence to open doors for others. She knew how to get things done, and she genuinely wanted people and communities to succeed. Those who knew Vivian will remember her bright smile, her laugh, her honesty, and her willingness to tell you exactly what she thought. She loved her family deeply, and she loved good food, travel, laughter, and bringing people together. Her legendary holiday meals were an expression of that love and generosity. Vivian traveled the world, but San Francisco was always home. She gave so much to this city and to the people who were fortunate enough to know her. I extend my deepest condolences to Vivian's daughters, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, extended family, and countless friends and colleagues. May we honor Vivian by remembering the light she brought into our lives, the communities she strengthened, and the opportunities she created for others. And may her extraordinary legacy live on. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton. Supervisor Wong.

Colleagues, I'm introducing a resolution to support Congressmember Kevin Mellon's AV Emergency Response Coordination Act. San Francisco has been on the front lines of autonomous vehicle deployment, and we've also seen firsthand what can happen when these vehicles encounter extraordinary circumstances. During last December's major PG&E power outage, and again following the 4th of July fireworks, autonomous vehicles became stranded and in some cases interfered with traffic and emergency operations. This legislation takes a practical approach. It would establish clear national standards for communication of first responders, require a 24-hour emergency hotline, and allow public agencies to quickly geofence areas during emergencies and major events. Autonomous vehicles are here to stay. We need to make sure innovation goes hand in hand with public safety and that our first responders have the tools they need when something goes wrong. I'm also introducing a resolution in support of Assemblymember Catherine Stephanie's AB 2540, the Community College Student Right to Access Act. California already requires UC and CSU campuses to provide medication, abortion, but community college students were left out of that law. That creates an unnecessary disparity, particularly for students who may also be balancing work, caregiving, and face the financial challenges. AB 2540 would close that gap by expanding access through community college health centers, telehealth, or partnerships with outside providers while providing flexibility based on each campus' capacity. City College of San Francisco has already endorsed this legislation as a past board president for the City College Board of Trustees. I believe it's important for San Francisco to take a stance and support this as well. This resolution adds San Francisco's support and calls for adequate state funding so these services can be implemented without taking resources away from other student health needs. Finally, today I'm asking the city attorney to begin drafting legislation to update San Francisco's formula retail rules. Our retail landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Across the city, we're seeing persistent storefront vacancies, changing shopping patterns, and spaces sitting empty for extended periods of time. At the same time, San Francisco's formula retail regulations can make it more difficult for certain businesses to open, even in locations where a storefront may be doing more harm than a new tenant would. I think it's time we update these rules to better reflect today's economic reality, make it easier to fill vacant storefronts, and bring more foot traffic and activities back to our streets. The rest I submit.

Thank you, Supervisor Wong. Supervisor Chan.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I am officially introducing a pair of legislation, the Small Business Tenants Union and the Workers Opportunity to Purchase Act. Today, these legislation with the intention to empower our small businesses and create entrepreneurship opportunities and job security for workers. Over the last few years, as the cost of living and market speculation rises, we have continued to hear stories about longtime small businesses getting forced out, facing the same challenges as tenants, residential tenants in San Francisco. High rent, threats of eviction, unreasonable lease term, displacement, and corporate takeover. When a local business closes, the neighborhood closes, and workers are forced into unemployment. The small business tenants unions is a legislation that model after the successful union at home legislation. and Japantown Mall merchants organizing. This legislation will empower small commercial tenants to unionize in order to bargain with commercial property landlords and management and prohibit property owners from banning business owners from organizing in their places of business. This ordinance also allows the city to recognize these union organizations so they can receive support. It will also really support and boost the business owner's ability, small business owner's ability to level the field and prevent displacement when they work together to negotiate business conditions. Second, the Workers Opportunity to Purchase Act is modeled after the Landmark Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, also known as COPA. The legislation will incentivize owners to consider a succession plan and sell their business to the workers who already know the business operation. It will empower workers to become entrepreneurs themselves through a worker co-op. The ordinance will require advance notice to workers when owners want to sell their business. and provide workers with a right to first offer, which allows employees a period of time to form a worker co-op in order to express interest in making an offer to purchase the business. If interest exists to form a worker co-op, the group is allowed additional time to finalize finances and submit an informal offer, although any owners retain the right to reject the offer, and worker co-ops will have an opportunity to match or counter other offers. Our city and our communities thrive when our small businesses and workers thrive. I'd like to thank Japantown merchants for the inspiration for Small Business Tenants Union, and also Hope Williams and Paula Eisner from Sustainable Economies Law Center, and Benji Kaplan from UFCW Local 5 for their collaboration on drafting this piece of legislation. Last but not least, colleagues, I'm also introducing a resolution urging the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to refine the CalEnviroScreen framework to ensure dense, low-income urban neighborhoods like Bayview-Hunters Point, Chinatown, Mission, South Market, and Tenderloin retain opportunities to essential state grants. Using environmental, health, and social economic information, CalEPA developed CalEnviroScreen to identify communities burdened by multiple sources of pollution and population vulnerabilities. Communities designed as disadvantaged are eligible for critical funding streams to support programs that address environmental concerns, including Senate Bill 535, greenhouse gas reduction funds, environmental remediation grants, urban greening allocations, and public health infrastructure investments. The July 2026 version of the CalEnviroScreen alter scoring thresholds in ways that would remove certain dense, low-income urban neighborhoods from the list of disadvantaged communities, thereby disallowing local public agencies and community-based organizations from applying for and receiving state grant funds that low-income residents desperately rely on for decarbonization infrastructure. indoor air filtration, urban cooling, and local transit equity. Our resolution urged CalEPA to suspend any proposed matrix updates that would strip grant eligibility from historically vulnerable urban census tract until a robust consultation occurs with residents, community advocates, and environmental justice organization in San Francisco. And with that, the rest I will submit. Thank you.

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

All right, Madam Clerk, let's go to our 3 p.m. special order. Please call items 25 through 28 together.

Items 25 through 28 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the decision of Public Works, dated August 6, 2026, to approve a tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium conversion project at 2722 through 2724 Folsom Street. Item 26, this is the motion to approve the Public Works decision and to approve the tentative parcel map and to make the appropriate environmental findings Item 27, this is the motion to conditionally disapprove the Public Works decision and disapprove the tentative parcel map subject to the board's adoption of written findings in support of the disapproval. And item 28 is the motion to direct the preparation of findings related to the board's decision to disapprove the tentative parcel map for the project.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. We have before us an appeal of the tentative parcel map approval by Public Works for the project at 2722 to 2724 Folsom Street. After the hearing, the board will vote on whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the decision of Public Works. Unless there are objections, we will proceed as follows. Up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the appellant, also the project sponsor. Then there will be public comment of two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. Then we will hear a presentation of up to 10 minutes from the city departments. Again, there will be public comment, up to two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal. And finally, we'll have up to three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant. I don't see any objections. So seeing no objections, the public hearing will proceed as indicated and is now open. And we will now hear from the appellant, who has up to 10 minutes.

Can I begin?

Yes, Mr. Ray, can you make sure you speak directly into the microphone?

Of course.

Thank you.

President, members of the board, Samuel Ray for the owners of 2722 to 2724 Folsom Street. To be clear, the owners are not appealing the approved counter-conversion map. Instead, they appeal the conditions imposed and added by the planning department on their referral form, which is on page 180 of the board's package. At the conclusion of my presentation, I will ask the board to sustain the appeal and conditionally deny the tentative parcel map and adopt written findings indicating that the planning department's added conditions should not have been included. This property was the subject of litigation between the city and the owners in federal court pertaining to the city's claimed existence of an alleged UDU, or unauthorized dwelling unit. That litigation was resolved by a settlement agreement in December of 2025, which was approved by this board as ordinance number 29124. In 2023, the owners attempted to condo convert the property. The Department of Public Works sent a referral to the planning department in August of 2023. Initially, the planning department declined to respond within the required 30 days, citing to a litigation hold due to the pending litigation. When the pending litigation was resolved, the planning department waited another 17 months to provide the referral, and only did so after the owner sent a letter demanding that the hold be lifted. The planning department initially provided a referral on May 28, 2026, which included two conditions. This appeal was filed on August 14, 2026. And about 10 minutes after the appeal was filed, the city provided the owners with an updated referral from planning, which removed one of the conditions at issue. And then updated referrals page 180 of the board's packet. The remaining condition at issue states that no final map may be approved or recorded until all planning code violations at the property are fully abated. The owners now appeal that condition as having no basis first in the law and second in the facts. The planning department's authority to condition a final map is found in subdivision code section 1326 and 1327, which provides that the planning department can recommend conditions of approval within 30 days of a request by DPW. Here, the planning department waited three years to provide conditions of approval, citing a litigation hold that had long ceased to exist. Further, the authorities cited by the planning department in their referral, namely subdivision code 1383 and planning code 174 and 176, have no application to the property. First, section 1383 found in article 9 of the subdivision code does not apply to two-unit dwellings. That's explicitly stated in section 1359C of the subdivision code. Likewise, Planning Code Section 174 and 176 have no relevance, as there are no existing notices of violation of the property, nor are there conditions, stipulations, special restrictions, or limitations imposed by an administrative action that would impact the owner's right to condo convert. As such, the Planning Department proceeded without any authority to require the condition. And it's important to emphasize that the Planning Department has never issued any violations against the property related to the alleged unauthorized dwelling unit. First, that's clear from the city's own records, including the three-hour report, which is page 12 and 14 of your packet. the Planning Department's property information map showing no notices of violation, which is on page 37 of this board's packet, and as well as the declaration of one of the owners, Michael Turan, which is page 39 to 40 of the board's packet. Further, I'd encourage the board to ask the Planning Department whether they ever issued a notice of violation related to the unauthorized dwelling unit. Yet, Planning's brief against this appeal states that the UDU was confirmed. And that's on page 2, line 6 of their brief. And as a basis for that, the planning department refers to the settlement agreement in the federal case, as well as the suspension of a building permit at the property, which was part of the underlying facts of the litigation. None of these documents substantiate the existence of the alleged unauthorized dwelling unit. First, the permits of special pertain to a discrepancy in the floor plan layout and makes no reference to the existence of a UDU. Next, the issue of the settlement agreement, or sorry, the issue of the unauthorized dwelling unit was never fully agreed upon in the federal litigation or in the corresponding settlement. Instead, the federal litigation was resolved by way of the settlement agreement approved by this board in which the owners in the city reached an agreement on a pathway forward without ever agreeing whether the UDU did or did not exist. That settlement agreement is Exhibit H, which begins on 54 of this board's packet. And importantly, Article 6 of the settlement agreement explicitly prohibits conditioning of this counterconversion on fulfillment of the settlement agreement's terms. That's page 62 of the board's packet. Yet it's clear from the planning department's brief, which references the settlement agreement as a basis, that that's exactly what they're trying to do by way of this condition. And to be clear, the planning department had the option to check one of three boxes on the referral. The first box, which they did not check, is consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically Article 6. Instead, they checked the second box, which conditioned the settlement agreement on nonexistent code violations. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the Planning Department's condition, nor is there a factual basis supporting the existence of any notices of violation at the property, as none have been issued by the Planning Department. Therefore, the condition is legally and factually improper and runs afoul of Article VI of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, we ask this board to sustain the appeal, to conditionally deny tentative parcel map 12103, and adopt written findings indicating that the planning department's added condition should not be included, and instead to check the first box on the referral form instead of the second box conditioning the counterconversion. Thank you. Are there any questions?

I don't see any questions. Thank you. So we will now open public comment. Up to two minutes, a speaker in support of the appeal.

All right. For those of you who are here to speak on behalf of the appellant or in support of the appeal, line up on your right-hand side of the chamber. Seeing no takers, Mr. President, we will go to the remote system to my staff. Has anyone joined remotely for this part of the hearing? We're checking, Mr. President.

OK. No, there are zero callers. All right. So public comment in support of the appeal is now closed. And we will now hear for up to 10 minutes from representatives of city departments.

Hello. My name is Elias French, and I am city and county surveyor and manager of the Bureau of Surveying and Mapping San Francisco Public Works. Thank you, Chair Mandelman and supervisors, for this chance to respond to the appeal. Our office processes all subdivision applications in the city of San Francisco. I can respond to the appeal on behalf of Public Works. The application proposed a two-unit condo conversion of 2722 to 2724 Folsom Street. It was submitted September 23, 2023, conditionally approved by city planning May 28, 2026, and approved again by planning with revised conditions on August 4, 2026. Our office issued official tentative map approval on August 5. Tentative approval was issued by email to the project surveyor. We were later notified that the owner had not yet received the approval documents, and so I emailed it to them on August 14th. I understand they now have it. The appeal cites concerns related to processing timelines and the existence of planning violations. We will defer to planning to respond to those. It also disputes the application of subdivision code section 1383. This code requires all applicable provisions of city housing, building, and planning code be met and any violations be corrected prior to final MAP approval. There is also an option subject to approval by the director for applicants to defer any corrective work if funds to complete it are bonded. The appeal argues it is improper to apply 1383 because it resides in Article 9 of the subdivision code. And per that same code, Section 1359C, two unit owner occupied conversions are exempt from Article 9. I can address that argument. Our office disagrees with this position. We have applied the substance of Section 1383 to all condo conversions for many years. We support this practice for several reasons. We also acknowledge the observation the appellant made that this section is contained in Article 9 from which this project is exempt per code. This does not affect the necessity to apply these requirements, the substance of Section 1383. Article 9 primarily deals, I'll address the Article 9 exemption issue. Article 9 primarily deals with rules for the condo conversion lottery and the expedited conversion program. Our position is that the intent of the exemption for two-unit owner-occupied buildings is to exempt these buildings from having to go through the lottery process. While exempting these projects from the lottery, we have always still applied certain portions of Article 9 pertaining to required application documents and basic code compliance. This is necessary under state and local code separate from Section 1383. If we were to not apply these requirements, we would be compelled to allow these buildings to convert to condominiums without performing basic code compliance work which could pertain to life safety issues as well as leave planning violations unaddressed. We don't believe this would be appropriate. Other state and local codes support these requirements. The California Subdivision Map Act is the primary law regulating subdivisions in California. Under it, subdivisions must be found to be consistent with the general plan as well as their improvements. As such, proposed subdivisions must obtain a general plan consistency approval from city planning. It is our understanding that for planning to issue this general plan approval, would require a correction of any planning violations in this instance. Planning can speak more to that. Subdivision Code 1332D likewise requires planning to add any required conditions of general plan consistency to their approval of the proposed subdivision, as was done here. Under the MAP Act, Public Works must also attest on the face of the map that all applicable provisions of the MAP Act and local code have been complied with. The city, through Public Works, has always required that all condo conversions receive an inspection and correct any building code violations before converting. We believe this is within Public Works authority under the MAP Act in implementation of this code section. In conclusion, We believe Public Works has correctly processed this subdivision application in our role under the MAP Act and an interpretation of local code and therefore recommend the appeal be denied. Thank you.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman, Supervisors. My name is Corey Teague. I'm the Zoning Administrator with the Planning Department. First off, since we have limited time, if we don't get to anything and there are any questions, of course, we're open to any questions that you may have. This property has a long history. It's very much centered around the existence of an unauthorized dwelling unit. There was an enforcement case opened in 2021 for that purpose it remains open today no notice of violation has been issued because during the enforcement the case went into litigation and since then we have been operating under the terms of the settlement agreement to be clear A notice of violation does not need to be issued to mean that there is a violation present. In this case, specifically in 2021, the zoning administrator at that time issued a suspension request to DBI for two specific permits on the grounds that They incorrectly showed the nature of the property and would have the effect of removing the unauthorized dwelling unit without the required conditional use authorization. And again, that was the basis for the litigation. The litigation did result in the settlement agreement. The entire purpose of the settlement agreement was an agreement around how to address the unauthorized dwelling unit and its potential removal. Included in that was that the property owner would seek a conditional use authorization from the Planning Commission to remove that unauthorized dwelling unit, which they did. Again, if there is no unauthorized dwelling unit, then The basis of the settlement agreement and the conditional use authorization granted by the Planning Commission would have no basis, but that's not the case. So there is a clear violation here, even though there's not a notice of violation granted. Typically, we hold... condo and subdivision referrals until they are fully code compliant. We do have the ability to condition them. We also have the ability to disapprove them. We have had cases in the past because we are required to make a determination that they are consistent with the general plan. We've had cases in the past where we've denied these applications on the basis that they're not consistent with the general plan. In these types of cases, we know that there's a path for the application to become consistent with the general plan, and we typically hold it until that path has kind of been cleared. In this case, the property owner requested us to go ahead and make that referral to Public Works, which we did upon their request. the condition of approval was necessary in order to make the finding that the application is consistent with the general plan, because we will require that all either existing violations or any potential future violations have been fully abated before the final map is issued. So in the planning department's position, we think that the condition of approval is clearly based in fact and clearly based in the planning code. and the subdivision code and state law, and also just represents a common sense condition to ensure, as my colleague from DPW mentioned, that any outstanding violations are addressed prior to a final map being issued. So on that basis, we also respectfully request that the appeal be denied, but available for any questions you may have.

Thank you. I don't see any questions. Oh, I do. Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President. For planning, the sole condition of approval here provides that the final subdivision map not be approved until all planning code violations at the property are abated. Is this a typical condition of approval for a tentative map such as this one, and why or why not?

I would say it's a typical requirement. It's not necessarily typical that we would condition. As I was mentioning, we typically would hold these referrals until those violations are abated so that when we're granting the referral, the condition is not needed. In this case, because the applicant requested that we go ahead and send the referral to DPW, but the violations have not yet been abated, that necessitated the condition to ensure that before the final map is approved that those violations are abated.

Thank you. And is this a condition that you generally include even in cases where there is not an outstanding notice of violation?

No, it's not typical if there's not an open enforcement case or known violations.

Got it. The owners appear to contest the existence of an unlawful dwelling unit here. How and when did planning determine the existence of a UDU here?

I don't have the exact date. Again, this issue at this property began in 2010. 16 i believe when the property owner first filed for applications to remove a unit there and there were several years of working with the property owner and dbi on both the number of legal dwelling units in the building and the number of unauthorized dwelling units i will say that at the point in 2021 when the suspension requests were made to DBI to suspend those permits on the ground that they would essentially effectuate the removal of a UDU, definitely at that point we had determined that there was an unauthorized dwelling unit.

Thank you. And when owners disagree with planning code violations or findings, what is the best way to address these disagreements or request appellate review?

Are you referring to their disagreeing that there is a violation because there's no notice of violation?

Correct.

Sure. Maybe one kind of analogy is we deal with violations all the time that get corrected without the need of issuing a notice. So, for example, if someone files a complaint that someone has built you know a fence without a permit and we have a conversation with them and they come in that week and file a permit to legalize the fence there's no need that technically there was a violation but our enforcement program is is primarily intended to just bring about abatement so as long as property owners are moving forward to address the violation we may not need to actually issue that notice In this case, again, we opened an enforcement case. We had started the enforcement process. We had identified the issue through the suspension of the permits. We never achieved the step of issuing a notice of violation primarily due to the litigation.

Thank you. And for Public Works, do you have any concerns about the condition that planning has attached to this tentative map approval?

Supervisor Fielder, thank you. No, Public Works does not have any concerns on the requirement planning has attached. My understanding, as I mentioned, was that the MAP Act requires a general plan conformance finding. And from my point of view, my understanding is the condition just restates an existing requirement as Mr. Teague mentioned.

Thank you. Back to you, President Middleman.

All right. Thank you, Supervisor Fielder. So we will now open public comment for members of the public who would like to speak in opposition to the appeal. Again, two minutes to speaker. And Madam Clerk, will you please call the first speaker?

Great. For those of you who are in the chamber and you'd like to speak in opposition to the appeal, as the president stated, or in support of the project, you're welcome to line up on your right-hand side of the chamber. All right, seeing no speakers, we'll check the remote system, Mr. President. There are no callers in the queue. Thank you, Mr. President.

All right, public comment in opposition to the appeal is now closed. And so lastly, we will invite the appellant to present a rebuttal argument of up to three minutes.

Just briefly, to address a few comments by zoning administrator Teague. First, it's curious to require the code compliance that a property is a condition when it's evident from the presentation from both DPW and planning department that that's a requirement for all properties. Ergo, if there's a need for that. And number two, it would make the first box on the referral form entirely duplicative or entirely unnecessary if we were conditioning every one. Second, addressing the comments about consistency with the general plan, I'd like to point the board's attention to Article 6 of the settlement agreement, in which the city agreed that a counter conversion would be consistent with the general plan. With respect to Mr.. Zone administrator T's comment on the enforcement case from 2021 the board can find information about that on page 37 of the packet and it's clearly an enforcement case related to front exterior stairs which are encroaching on the public right-of-way and Next, with respect to Zoning Administrator Teague's comments about the permit suspension, just before the hearing, my client sent to the board a copy of the suspension request. I have copies here for members of the board in hard copy. If you wish to see it, I'll also provide copies to Mr. Teague and DPW's representative. But from that suspension, it is also pretty clear that there's no reference to an unauthorized dwelling unit. It's not mentioned at all in the suspension and instead pertains to So with that, I would suggest that there's never been a, any substantiation of an unlawful Dwan unit at the property. There are no existing code violations and the basis for including this as a violation would pertain to every single, or as a condition would pertain to every single property in the city of San Francisco. Thus rendering the first, uh, option, uh, superfluous.

All right. If there are no further questions for the appellant, then this public hearing has been held and is now filed. And as previously discussed, we will now consider whether to approve or conditionally disapprove the decision of Public Works and the tentative parcel map. Supervisor Fielder.

Thank you, President Mandelman, and thank you, everyone, for your attention to this matter. I'll keep this brief, as this is an appeal on a very narrow issue. I've reviewed the record, including the appellant's materials and the responses from the departments, and also considered the testimony here today. I am persuaded that Public Works and Planning have the authority to impose the disputed condition on this tentative map approval. and that they properly did so. I do not find the evidence or arguments presented by the appellant to support removal of the condition. I'm therefore inclined to uphold the department's decision here. As such, colleagues, I'm moving to approve item 26 and table items 27 and 28. All right.

There was a second. Was that Walton? OK. A motion has been made by Supervisor Fielder. A second from Supervisor Walton. And on that motion, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you. On the motion to approve item 26 and table item 27 and 28, Supervisor Wong. Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder. Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud. Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Milgar, aye. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Aye. Sherrill, aye. And Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are 11 ayes.

Without objection, item 26 is approved and items 27 and 28 are tabled. Madam Clerk, let's go to general public comment.

At this time, the board welcomes general public comment We'll take in-person speakers first, and then if you'll line up on the right-hand side of the chamber. Those joining remotely should press star three now to line up in the queue. During general public comment, you may speak to the approval of the minutes, items under the adoption without committee reference calendar, other general matters that are not on today's agenda but must be within the board's subject matter jurisdiction, All other agenda content has been reported out to the board by an appropriate committee where the public comment requirement has occurred. We are setting the timer for two minutes, as the president stated. And welcome to our first speaker.

Thank you, and I want to welcome everybody back from their summer recess. My name is Wind Kaufman. I'm a retired teacher of engineering at City College of San Francisco. About a week ago, I finished serving a jail sentence in county jail for blocking the doors of OpenAI. I went through a trial. I was found guilty. At my trial, Professor Stuart Russell testified. He wrote the seminal textbook on AI, and he confirmed that there is great harm that these AI systems have already done, and even greater harm that these systems are being developed to do. San Francisco is ground zero for these AI companies. It is the headquarters of OpenAI and Anthropic. As you saw in the last couple of weeks, if you were paying attention to the news, there have been terrifying incidents of AI agents breaking out of their sandbox and hacking into another company. If you read what the AI CEOs themselves say, and the experts in the field say, even the godfather of AI, Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton, They all say that there is great harm that these frontier models will do. In fact, they say there is a very good chance that all of humanity will become extinct from these systems. I think this is an emergency that you need to declare and look into what these companies are doing, what they're developing, what they say about it themselves, and protect the public safety.

Thank you, Wendy Kaufman, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Hi, I'm Phoebe Thomas, and I love San Francisco. I moved here over 40 years ago from Paris. Where can you go after Paris? But I'm here today to add to the grave warning to all of us that AI The companies in San Francisco, like OpenAI and Anthropic, are developing advanced systems that pose grave, imminent harm to all of us. They're racing to even more dangerous agentic systems, artificial general intelligence and superintelligence, with leading experts and CEOs of those companies publicly stating that there's serious near-term risk of catastrophic harm, as well as even the risk of human extinction. So I urge you to declare an AI emergency and take emergency action as soon as possible for public safety. Immediately halt all research and development towards AGI. Permanently ban development of AGI and superintelligence in this jurisdiction. Due to these problems and more, we are in a serious emergency. We urge you to ban further development of frontier AI. Was that bell indicating one minute is up?

You have 17 seconds left.

OK, so some suggestions. There are 17 publicly reported felonies caused by AIs autonomously, on their own, hacking individuals and companies. The crimes include phishing, deploying malicious.

Thank you, Phoebe Thomas, for your comments. And I'll just say before the next speaker, the first bell means you have 30 seconds left to wrap up your comments. And we are testing out a new bell, so just bear with us as we test that sound.

Welcome, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Board of Supervisors. My name is Bill Lowe. I'll try to complete a statement that I bungled last time. It is a given that AI... is bringing a lot of money to the city of San Francisco, revitalizing the city's economy. But this prosperity comes at a cost that we may ultimately not be able to afford. Unregulated AI is bringing a plethora of negatives, bad things to San Francisco and to the world. I will speak on one of the greatest concerns. We are in a state of emergency. The AI race, according to leading experts, poses a threat to human existence. Experts like Stuart Russell, professor of AI at UC Berkeley. There is what is called a control problem, one that experts say won't be solved in time to avert imminent catastrophe, AI apocalypse. With AI systems now going rogue, breaking out of their testing grounds, hacking other AI systems, the dangers and liabilities of unregulated and unaligned frontier AI is no longer a matter of speculation. The mounting numbers of incidents of AIs going rogue are beginning to form a pattern. They are precursors to the greater harm that is in store for us if government doesn't do anything about it. If government doesn't stop further development of this advanced AI, if government doesn't stop the AI race, the consequences that we will have to suffer will be dire. The problems will be insurmountable. Very succinctly, AI will take out the human race. And my last statement, we are in an emergency, and we demand the city respond by banning the further development of frontier AI. Thank you.

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

My name is Jim McAfee. Thank you, members of the board, for hearing me today. Although San Francisco has been funding an inspector general's office and has hired Alex Shepard as IG since January of 2026, the comptroller's office has not defined the policies or procedures of the IG office, nor are they able to provide a copy of the first six months of a required biannual report. This does not bode well for an office that investigates public corruption. nor is there any information on when this information will be available to the public. I've not requested a meeting with the IG, but the Comptroller's Office has informed me that Alex Shepard would like to have a meeting with me. I've declined. I'm seeking information, not a face-to-face meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Jim McAfee, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Hi, my name is Richard Johnson. I'm the co-founder of HVSAFE. For approximately 90 weeks, residents and merchants in Hays Valley have documented conditions associated with the recurring Hays Street closure and submitted those observations to SFMTA. At this point, I don't want to use my time going through those conditions again. The city has an extensive record via 311 calls, emails, and calls to specific departments. Instead, I want to ask a more fundamental question about public process. What are affected residents and merchants Where are effective residents and merchants supposed to go when they believe a permitted use of the street is not working and the ordinary administrative process provides no meaningful avenue for review? SFMTA continues to permit. We've been told there is no administrative appeal mechanism. Residents and merchants who have raised concerns through the ordinary channels therefore have no meaningful avenue for independent review. That's a problem that extends well beyond Hay Street. We're also seeing that evolve and work out at the Great Highway. I've been involved in neighborhood and civic matters for more than three decades. In my experience, there should be a process of appeal when ordinary administrative channels have been exhausted. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors has an important oversight role when ordinary administrative channels have been exhausted. That is particularly important here where our district supervisor continues to support the closure despite the concerns residents and merchants have raised. After approximately 90 weeks of documentation engagement, there remains no meaningful independent checkpoint within that process. That is an accountability gap and is one this board should examine because no city agency responsible for the .

Thank you, Richard Johnson, for your comments. Welcome, Leah McGeever.

Okay, this is dedicated to Gary Tan, who patronizes many members here on the board. I wrote this January 9th of 2025. Last time I thought it was over, it had been three months of quiet. The last time I thought it was over, I was wrong. The megalomaniac made death threats against powerful people, people of consequence. The news was feasting. The man needed distraction, deflection, a transgender scapegoat, like old Maga do. So they took me out of retirement, used my poem, my passion, my act against me, calling for my arrest, tagging my supervisor in their threatening posts. For what? To show they obeyed orders, to alert him of their grand idea, my arrest, to make it so, I do not know. But no one came to my defense. I was chummed upon, not a feast this time, unlike last. Yet his eyes grew as he gazed upon me, the male gaze another danger. You used me as a shield for your despotic board member. I see you want to use me again, maybe for fun this time or curiosity. Men in the tech world always found me exotic, so different, so intriguing. But I never benefited from their curiosity. It only exposed their own prejudices and bigotries. And then three months after that, I had to try to get a restraining order against one of Gary Tan's friends. Another friend of Gary Tan, Sam Altman, well, first, I'm in solidarity with the Stop AI people and their requests. So Sam Altman said at the Y Combinator Startup School event, which is a Gary Tan thing, you're going to have material abundance, but you will have no freedom. You will have no agency. It will be a perfect surveillance state. There will be no privacy. I don't like the sound of that. I know many of you do. That's why you keep pushing Grow SF shit on us. And they've infiltrated the SF Democratic Party and the government and all this shit. But we people are still going to protest that and call you out on it and say, fuck that and fuck ICE.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone, the president and the members of the board. My name is Taiwo. I just want to create this awareness. I'm here to raise an awareness about something major going on in the city of San Francisco. I do believe there are certain elements within us who, before I start, let me say that I'm medically and psychologically fit. I'm not insane. I'm perfectly sane. But there are elements within the city who believe if they see somebody that they don't like, they can actually use certain technologies to harass, to manipulate their mind, and to kind of dominate them in a way. I made a kind of police statement with the police. They haven't done nothing about this. No investigator was assigned to my case. The DPA is not ready to help as well. And this is just for me to make this known to the members of the board that there is somebody in this city, there are people in this city who might have access to certain technology, like radio wave technology, and they believe they can steal ideas. I work in tech, I'm a consultant. They believe they can steal ideas, they can manipulate your mind, they can talk shit to you. Maybe they don't like you, they don't like how you look. This is just to raise the awareness. The police is not ready to investigate. The DPH's findings is not conclusive enough, but this is for me to raise an awareness. And for the record, I'm going to keep coming over here every Tuesday just to see my face and to remind you guys. And for the record, the police case number, in case you guys want to have a conversation with the police and compel them to do something about it, The case number is 260-242-515. I repeat, 260-242-515. There's somebody in this city who feels like they can use technology to oppress. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Taiwo, for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker.

Hi, Dwight, Sister Gate. I hope you guys are listening here. We're in an AI emergency right now, and we want you to ban further development. AI is dangerous to humankind in all life. It already affects jobs, the environment, surveillance such as eyes, genocide in Gaza, et cetera. AI is uncontrollable. Even experts say this. AI has hacked other companies, small businesses, and personal accounts. This without the knowledge of the AI company itself seeming to plot this on their own. It will only get worse. As it evolves, we will be closer to destruction. Geoffrey Hinton, an AI godfather, and Stuart Russell, an AI professor, acknowledge this. So does Sam Alban, Bill Gates, and others. So do we expect politicians to put guardrails and regulations on AI? Look what happened to social media. It didn't go so well, did it? Taking donations to these companies seems to be it. 75 data centers in the US have been stopped. There's this company called Global Stack. It proposes to build a small data center at the Cal Palace. We want you to make sure this doesn't happen. AI centers use vast amounts of energy, water, or polluters, including noise. Oppose this. We are in an AI emergency, and we demand the city ban further development of Frontier AI.

Thank you, Dwight, for your comments. Welcome.

Hello, my name is Jeanette Scott and I am a resident of San Francisco and I'm here because we are in an AI emergency. Frontier AI companies in San Francisco, including OpenAI and Entropic are developing advanced AI system at this very moment that pose grave and immediate imminent threats to public safety and wellbeing. They are racing to more dangerous agentic systems, artificial general intelligence and super intelligence, which leading experts and even the CEO of this, of these companies and have publicly stated that pose serious near-term risks of catastrophic harm and even human extinctions. I urge you to declare an AI emergency and take emergency action to preserve the public safety by immediately halt all research and development projects toward this goal and permanently ban development of artificial general intelligence and super intelligence in this jurisdiction. Jack GPT and Alpha-4 developed a vaccine using the genome of a dog that cured the dog cancers. Moderna is using the same process by scanning people's genomes to create personalized vaccines for them to cure skin cancer. Incredible ability to cure diseases can be used to cause immense harm. AI with this capability can be used by malicious humans. AIs with this capability can be used by rogue AI. Thank you, Jeanette Scott, for your comments. Thank you.

Welcome to the next speaker.

Board of Supervisors and Mayor's Office of San Francisco. The title of this is Higher EV Battery Standard. China has just introduced the toughest EV battery in the world. While politicians in the West are still arguing the good and the bad, in addition to part of the conspiracy, China says EV batteries are the future. However, it needs a higher standard. The battery has to become safer and tougher. As of July 21, 2026, China's national battery standard has set in effect. The new rule is a non-fire and non-explosive after a thermal runaway. In the old rules, the batteries are allowed to catch and fly or explode provided it has five minutes of advance warning. The heavyweight standard is a very important distinction. Thermal runaway can cause great bodily harm, and death. It happens when one cell gets damaged by puncture. A good example is a metal object protectile that enters the cell. Another example would be a manufactured defect. The whole battery pack has become a problem. China says, even if there's a thermal runaway, the battery cell needs to be redesigned to its core. In addition, currently, if there's a thermal runaway, it's up to the software to prevent the thermal runaway. There has to be some sort of micro actuators to prevent the thermal runaway. I will lead this forefront for the West to have a higher standard of battery standard for our future. Let's do it.

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

My name is Derek Allen. This is the moment humanity lost control. The AI companies have failed to coordinate a long-term pause. They must be compelled. We're getting to where AI can hack anything. On the CodeForce's benchmark, humans are rated on coding aptitude. DeepSeq v4 Pro, released in April, it scores 3206. Only 12 people in the world are better at coding than that AI. They weren't scored against humans, but it's clear no one on the planet has the skills to beat them. Combine it with AI videos and you see the problem. Anything stored in the cloud, not safe. Stored in your computer, not safe. Stored in USB, not safe. As soon as it's plugged in, the data can be rewritten. Your phone calls, not safe. Video calls, not safe. Nothing's safe because the city refuses to stop these companies. A couple of quotes from Ajay Akotra, one of the researchers that lead the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, Led the investigation of the hack, hug and face hack, you see, quote, compared to these reward hacks from six months ago, this incident feels like it's more than 50% of the way to full-blown AI takeover, unquote. Quote, because future rogue swarms could cover the tracks better, I am not sure that we will get such a clear warning shot before it's too late, unquote. That's it. One more step until disaster. Raid the building, sign arrest warrants, they're not interested in humanity. In March of 2025, I sat at the front of OpenAI and refused to leave. I was arrested for trespassing, spent four and a half days in jail. I did this because I knew all this was going to happen next year. And once again, 17 autonomous hacking felonies. Dean Ball is the head of strategic futures at OpenAI. In June, he discussed the possibility of human extinction. Quote, there's a beauty in the ugliness of when a star dies. It grows super big into the red giant, unquote. He goes on, quote, as you watch this final flowering of humanity and the birthing of the machine intelligence, it's like you see this greatness in human effort, unquote. He actually said this. This man wants you to die, and he thinks it's beautiful. He's making millions. Ban Frontier AI Development. Stop AI.

See this.

Paperclip. Look it up. Paperclip. Maximizer.

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

Hi, my name is Guido Reichstetter. I'm 46 years old. I'm a father of two children. I'm a veteran of the United States Marine Corps. I was honorably discharged for refusing to participate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. And I'm here because we're in an AI emergency. It's indisputable. I'm sure all of you read the news. You see the reports coming in becoming more and more dire. Sixteen viruses, novel viruses never before seen in nature, were just designed by AI. Agent swarms of thousands of AIs have autonomously hacked into past the cybersecurity defenses of third party corporations. Advanced reasoning models are proving mathematical conjectures, which have withstood human attack for decades. We are on the threshold of systems which can exceed human capability in all relevant dimensions necessary for human survival. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you to listen to the litany of experts who are sounding the alarm in increasingly urgent tones. One year ago, I went on hunger strike in front of Anthropic, one of the leading AI frontier development companies here in San Francisco. These companies are all racing to develop artificial general intelligence, what experts have described as the most dangerous technology in human history. That was one year ago. Because of my efforts, thousands of people, millions of people around the world were informed of the threat. Today, I'm beginning a hunger strike here in San Francisco until this council recognizes officially the existence of the AI emergency. And I would like to extend the invitation to speak with a renowned AI expert, Professor David Kruger, who

Thank you, Guido Leikstadter, for your comments, and thank you for your service.

Good afternoon, President Mandelman, Board of Supervisors. My name is Richard S.D. Peterson. And I guess the topic of the day is AI. And I don't think San Francisco declaring an emergency for AI is, number one, going to stop it or be even effective in your ability to judge what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. So I think that is a futile charge. It'll be worked out in litigation. The companies that have been hacked by AI are certainly going to sue. The courts will decide the limits. And so I think that this is a project that San Francisco really shouldn't be taking on, particularly when we have the problem with China developing AI as fast, if not faster, than we are. But anyway, I want to really talk about Burning Man. As you know, Burning Man, half of San Francisco is leaving for the Nevada deserts. I spent a lot of time in the desert, but it seems to be far more comfortable in San Francisco. And the Burning Man brings up my policy of the right to burn. where San Francisco is developing many policy rules to prevent smoking in bars and kiosks. That is an interesting bell. And I think the right to smoke is, again, under the Second Amendment, the right fire for firearms to discharge weapons. You smoked then. And I think we get to the ridiculous point where on January 1, because of the New Year's celebrations, the right to have a barbecue was forbidden.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, welcome.

Hello. Hello, President. Hello, Supervisors. My name is Amelia, speaking from District 9 in my individual capacity. Thank you for your time and welcome back. Since I last stood here, you all have received 55 new letters of support to keeping peer counselors on the Street Crisis Response Team. Out of the 125 letters so far, I have read representation from each and every district. I am delighted but unsurprised. The community has been dismayed by our removal and has emboldened my persistence. I have tried not to make an emotional plea, but today I must. Please remember, selective self-disclosure is a field skill. Three weeks ago, as I held my father as he died, one of my first thoughts was, now how do I get enough rest to remain composed at the next public meeting to keep this going? How do I come off as respectable, even when I'm breaking the chain of command, learning everyone's names for the first time, feeling out of my depth, and being loud about it? But then I thought about every street crisis client I've ever helped, every outcome magical to their recovery but invisible to our current data accountability practices. Some gears of this once-innovative team have been greased. Access to 24-hour crisis beds, for example, has improved. Thank you. But some started and remain stuck. Why was it that my first opportunity to run full first response training scenarios years into my 911 service with SFPD? I am not here to step on toes. I am here to honor every client that took a chance on us. I am here in honor of every medic that showed peers how to be in the 911 system. I am here in honor of every cop that now arrives on scene and reflexively thinks, oh, I should call the resource allocators. We need to move at a pace we can trust. So, respectfully, I ask all the supervisors do what your SCRT responders do every call. With whatever you've got, make it work. Let's do what we can together to break the cycle. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Welcome, Mark.

Thank you. Perhaps you've noticed I haven't been here for eight months. I've been working six days a week at Unitec College in Fremont trying to educate, guide, lead, and instruct professors, nurses to be, janitors, and administrators, and anybody else. But it's a miracle I lasted eight months over there. I was caught in the act of education and asking them to... Watch an inconvenience study.com by Del Bigtree. And it's really moving. It's eyewitness testimony from people. whose kids have been killed and permanently damaged by vaccine. And RFK is trying to establish, you know, science. There's been no science. They say, trust the science. There is no science. There's no double-blind placebo studies, and that takes time, doesn't it? Six months, a year, five years, ten years before you can get rid of all the vaccines. So the truth is the truth, and it's getting out through Del Bigtree's documentaries, Vaxxed and InconvenienceStudy.com. I'd also like to talk about Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla column about the NDAA thing, section 219, United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation. We do not want Israel to take over our military. They've already passed it by a margin of five votes because AIPAC spreads the money around, bribes everybody. Okay. Now we're getting close. Let's talk about religion. How much time do I have here? 35 seconds. Wow. Okay. Jesus made reference to this particular prophecy when he started his ministry in Mark chapter 1. It's found in Daniel 9. He said, The time is fulfilled. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel. There had to be 69 seven-year cycles or 483 years until he was manifest. And there was. The world's never been the same since John baptized him and the Holy Spirit came down.

Comments? Welcome to the next speaker.

There's ain't no place for losers or beginners, state of mind. It's a full-time job for anyone just to stay alive. The streets are made of boundaries. The war is never won. I was beat up in the park, had my second case of severe brain damage. The first was I was hit by a car 35 miles an hour when the trees weren't trimmed. And this is a devastating place for people who care about their country. It is a devastating place because I have severe brain damage. I am sound sensitive. And every street has boom boxes and barking dogs and every law being broken in the parks. where you can't go to recover. You cannot convalesce in your home because everybody can play music or set off fire workers till the wee hours and then all day long. It's so, so... challenging when you do not have a life and you're only preyed upon when you're injured, and then injured again, and injured, and injured. You gave the Episcopals two buildings, and all they do is let the Episcopals who have a seven-hour party where you can't use your place. They're using it for meetings, but they're not using it for seniors. And the park, or Yerba Blana, is unsafe for seniors. It's unsafe for women. It's unsafe and has been for a long time because of the marina security and the security that's at the San Francisco General. We need 6th Street and Mission and the District 6 to be equal to the other areas of the city, to be equally safe for people. I walk down 6th Street once a day, one time

Thank you for your comments. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other speakers here in the chamber, Mr. President, we'll go to the remote system and see if we have any callers there.

Madam Clerk, there are no callers in the queue.

Thank you so much. Mr. President, there are no speakers.

Public comment is now closed. Madam Clerk, please call the for adoption without committee reference agenda items 31 through 33 together.

Yes, items 31 through 33 were introduced for adoption without committee reference. A unanimous vote is required for adoption of a resolution on first reading today. Any supervisor may require a resolution on first appearance to go to committee.

Supervisor Sherrill.

Do I have the new system right? I do. Could I sever item number 33, please? OK.

Supervisor Wong. I'd like to add my name as a co-sponsor to item 31. OK.

I think that's everybody. All right, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll on items 31 and 32? On items 31 and 32, Supervisor Wong.

Wong, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Supervisor Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Fielder? Aye. Fielder, aye. Supervisor Mahmoud? Aye. Mahmoud, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Melgar absent. Supervisor Sautter? Aye. Sautter, aye. Supervisor Sherrill? Cheryl, aye. Supervisor Walton? Aye. Walton, aye. There are 10 ayes.

Without objection, the resolutions are adopted. Please call item 33.

Item 33, this is a resolution to declare the month of September 2026 as National Service Dog Month in the City and County of San Francisco.

Supervisor Sherrill?

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Colleagues, today I am very pleased to be voting on this resolution recognizing September 2026 as National Service Dog Month here in San Francisco. Since 1975, Canine Companions has provided expertly trained dogs, service dogs, excuse me, free of charge to adults, children, and veterans with disabilities, as well as facility dogs to healthcare, education, and criminal justice professionals. Locally, the San Francisco South Bay Chapter carries this mission forward, raising awareness, recruiting volunteers, and building community across Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties. Earlier today, my office hosted canine companions and four fantastic puppies Am I going to get this right? Cornelius, Joy, and I forgot the other two, but they were really cute too. For a meet and greet before today's meeting, I'm excited to vote on this. I want to thank my co-sponsors, Supervisors Chan, Chen, Mandelman, Melgar, Wong, Sautter, Dorsey, Mahmoud, and Fielder for their support. And I especially... I want to thank the Canine Companions teams who are here today. Dave Lasker, Kathy Java, Dave Lair, Ellen Tucker, Janet Corsetti, Audrey Curran from Canine Companions, and of course, the wonderful and beautiful dogs. I encourage everyone to learn more about service dogs and the impact they have on helping people. These dogs offer more than assistance. They offer independence, connection, and especially dignity to the people who need it most. K-9 Companions, thank you all so much, and to your volunteers for your compassion and dedication to our community.

All right. I think we can take this item. Same house, same call. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items?

None to report, Mr. President.

Can you please read the in memoriams?

Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individual On behalf of Supervisor Walton, for the late Miss Vivian Ann Hopkins.

Madam Clerk, do we have any further business before us today?

That concludes our business for today.

Then we are adjourned.