Thank you, Mr. President, Supervisor Chan. Chan, President, Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, President, Supervisor Ringardio. Angardio, President, Supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman, President, Supervisor Melgar. Melgar, President, Supervisor Peskin. Peskin, President, Supervisor Preston. Preston, President, Supervisor Ronan. Ronan, President, Supervisor Safa Yi. Professor. Safa Yi President, Supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie, President and Supervisor Walton. Walton, President. Mr. President, all members are present. Thank you. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors acknowledges we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramatusha Loni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramatushaloni have never seated, lost, or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all people 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 Ramatushaloni community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Colleagues, please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God, invisible with liberty and justice for all. Madam Clerk, could you please read the consent agenda? Or do you have any announcements? Yes, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors welcomes you to attend this meeting in the board's legislative chamber, City Hall, Second Floor, Room 250. Or you may watch the proceeding on SFGov TV's channel 26 or view the live stream at www.sfgovtv.org. You may submit your public comment in writing by either sending an email to bosatsfgov.org or via the US Postal Service to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the number one. Dr. Carlton, be good-lit place, City Hall, room 244, San Francisco, California, 9402. If you need to make a reasonable accommodation request under the Americans with Disability Act, or to request language assistance, please contact the clerk's office at least two business days in advance by calling 415 554 5184. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Could you please read the consent agenda? Yes. Items pardon me. Items went through five are on consent. These items are considered to be routine if a member objects an item may be removed and considered separately. Seeing no names on the roster, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll and items one through five. On items one through five, supervisor Chan. On items one through five. Chan, aye, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye, supervisor Angardio. Angardio, aye, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey eye, supervisor Rangardio. And Gardio eye, supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman eye, supervisor Melgar. Melgar eye, supervisor Peskin. Aye. Peskin eye, supervisor Preston. Preston eye, supervisor Ronan. Ronan eye, supervisor Safa Yi. Safa Yi, supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie eye, and supervisor Walton. Walton I, there are 11 eyes. Those ordinances are finally passed. Madam Clerk, please read item six. Item six, this is an ordinance to approve the police departments in Venturi and policy relating to the use of unassisted aerial vehicles or drones and to make findings consistent with the criteria in state law. Roll call. On item six, supervisor Chan. Chan I, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey I, supervisor and guardio. In guardio I, supervisor mandelman. Mandelman I, supervisor Melgar. Melgar I, supervisor Melgar. Melgar I, supervisor Peskin. I. Peskin I, supervisor Preston. Preston I, supervisor Ronan. Ronan. LAUGHTER Ronan, no. You just kept going. Ronan, no, supervisor Safa Yi. I. Ronin no, supervisor Safaii. I. Safaii, I, supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie, I and supervisor Walton. Walton, no. There are nine eyes and two nose with supervisors Ronin and Walton in the descent. The ordinance is finally passed. Next item. Item seven. This is an ordinance to retroactively authorize the Department of Public Works to accept and expend a $12 million grant from the Urban and Community Forest Program of the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service to fund the Department of Public Works Justice Jobs and Trees Program that will include tree planting, tree establishment, and urban forestry workforce development in disadvantaged communities through June 30th, 2029. And to retroactively amend ordinance number 167-24, the interim annual salary ordinance for fiscal years, 2024 through 25 and 2025 through 26. And the annual salary ordinance for fiscal years 2024, 25 and 2025, 26. To provide for the addition of one grant funded position, 1312 public information officer, a class 1823 senior administrative analyst, and a class 3435 urban forestry inspector through June 30th, 2029. Roca. On item seven, supervisor Chan. Chan, I, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, I, supervisor and cardio. And cardio, I, supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman, I, supervisor Melgar. Melgar, I, supervisor Peskin. I. Peskin, I, supervisor Preston. Preston, I, supervisor Ronan. Ronan, aye. Supervisor Preston. Preston, aye. Supervisor Ronan. Ronan, aye. Supervisor Safa Yi. Safa Yi, aye. Supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie, aye. And Supervisor Walton. Walton, aye. There are 11, aye. The ordinance is passed on 1st, 3rd. Madam Clerk, could you read items eight and nine together, please? Yes, items eight and nine are in ordinance and a resolution respectively. The ordinance appropriates $30.5 million consisting of $29 million of one or more series of certificates of participation. Series 2024 A proceeds in $1.5 million of projected parking revenues from operation of the music concourse garage in the recreation and park department to place these funds on controllers reserve pending the sale of the certificates of participation and acquisition of the music concourse garage in fiscal year 2425. Item 9 is the resolution to approve a second amendment to the management agreement between the city and I'm co-parking LLC to add operation of the music concourse garage to the contract scope of work including the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency parking garages and lots and to increase the contract amount by 27 million for a new total amount of $207 million with no changes to the five-year term through January 19, 2028. Same house, same call. The ordinance is passed on first reading and the resolution adopted next item. Item 10, this is an ordinance to delegate Board of Supervisors approval authority under charter section 9.118 sub-A to the Department of Public Works to enter into and amend contracts with the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure for the Trans Bay Project and to authorize the Department of Public Works to execute certain access agreements necessary to further development of the Trans Bay project. Same house, same call, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Next item. Item 11 resolution to retroactively approve a grant agreement for the student success fund between the San Francisco Unified School District and the city for a total term through June 30th, 2025, and a not-to-excite amount of approximately 26 million. Same. How about- I'm Mr. President. Supervisor Walton. Supervisor Walton, my apologies. Thank you so much, President Peskin. Do we have somebody here to answer questions on this item? From DCYF, is there a representative from the Department of Children and Youth that are their families? Seeing none, why don't we skip over to this item until your questions can be answered. are representative from the department of children and youth that are their families. Seeing none, why don't we skip over to this item until your questions can be answered. Supervisor. Thank you so much. All right, Madam Clerk, let's go to item. Supervisor, yes. I'm on the roll call. Oh, I'm sorry. Supervisor Ronan. Thank you. I just wanted to let you know through the chair, Supervisor Walton that we did have two meetings at budget finance committee meeting on this. I have a feeling I know what your questions are related to and perhaps not this 26 million but perhaps another 8 million that was recently announced. It's going to be used for a different purpose, but I did just want to inform the board that thanks to the leadership of Chair Chan and the great work by our budget legislative analyst. We added language in both the contract that is an attachment to the resolution, as well as instructions for DCYF in the future that require them to be much clearer than they have been up to this point about outcomes that they expect for each grant, as well as the methods by which they're going to evaluate whether or not those outcomes indeed occurred and took place. So I just want my colleagues to know that we are very meticulously and I have asked my partner and so much of this work, Supervisor Mugger, in three months when I'm gone to be extremely vigilant about all student success funds. I've asked Nick Menard of the Budget and Legislative Analyst to be extremely vigilant of all future allocations of the student success fund because, and this is what we have, the long discussion about in committee and what I would assume you want to talk to DC by F about right now is that this fund was not meant to cover the many problems that the school district has currently with its budget and with its operations. This grant, this money that the voters voted for, was meant very narrowly and very specifically to address academic achievement, which is sorely lacking in many, many schools and amongst many, many students throughout the district and social emotional wellness, which is a crisis not only in San Francisco schools for children and social emotional wellness, which is a crisis, not only in San Francisco schools for children and young people today, but all over the country. And that the interventions that are to be funded with this money, if they don't specifically address one of those two issues, then that's not the purpose of this funding. So I too have some questions about that. Eight million that was announced by the mayor. I know you do. I know Supervisor Safaí does, I know many people do, and I'm looking forward to having that conversation, but for the purposes of this $26 million, which is the funding from this year, not last year, that $8 million they're talking about was left over funding from last year. We put a lot of checks and balances in the contracts and in the language to ensure that that money is being well spent. We cannot afford to waste a dime of this money. This is a massive investment that the City and County of San Francisco is making in our children. It's the right investment and I think the voters of San Francisco for doing that. It's our job to watch it like hawks, to make sure that we actually move the needle on academic achievement and social emotional wellness with this money. I know that we can do it. We are doing it in the pilot math program that we initiated at four schools. We pretty substantially raised math scores, SBAC scores among African-American and Latino children at all of those schools. And that's the kind of outcome that we need to see that we deserve to see that our students deserve to achieve. So I just wanted to make that point before we have more discussion on this item. Supervisor Walt, would you still like to wait for the Department of Children Youth in their families? Definitely still one away, but I do want to make a statement. And thank you so much, President Perskin. And thank you so much, Supervisor Ronin, for the explanation. But it's also very difficult at a time where the district is lacking transparency, being very divisive with communities, stalling parents, creating anxiety in our communities around what their plans are for the future, having back door closed meetings and not being upfront with families that they would come to us and continue to ask for money from the city and county. And we don't know what we're supporting because we don't know what schools are going to be eliminated, what schools are going to be merging, what's going to be happening with the future of the district. So for us to be given the district any money during this time period, I just think it's a slap in the face to parents, it's a slap in the face to community. And that's why I want to ask these very pointed questions and I understand exactly what resources we are talking about for here and have read the BLA report. And most certainly was not intending not to support this item today, but most certainly wanted to hear answers to what we're doing with the resources. Because Prop G was not voted on to subsidize the school district. Prop G was voted on to improve outcomes for our students in the district to make sure that we get more innovative with class offerings and programming so we can address the gaps in achievement within the district. And so moving forward in any way to try to subsidize district operations quite frankly is going backwards and not even going to be helpful to the district because of the state that they're in. So I just wanted to bring that up. I do definitely still have several questions around this item and just around what we're going to be doing with the resources. So that's why I do want to hear from somebody. Thank you, Supervisor Walton. I am informed that Maria Sue from DCYF and Sheree Storcy Smith are on their way. So why don't we circle back to this Madam Clerk? Why don't we move on to item number 12? Item 12, this is a resolution to retroactively authorize the San Francisco Department of Public Health to enter into a participation agreement with the federal centers for Medicare and Medicaid services to provide federal funding for an innovative dementia care program for a 10-year term in 26 days through June 30th, 2034, having anticipated revenue with 3.5 million. Seeing no names on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call. The resolution is adopted next item. Item 13 resolution to retroactively authorize the office of the district attorney to accept rate of approximately a $1.17 on each 100 valuation of taxable property. For the city San Francisco Unified School District, the San Francisco County Office of Education, the San Francisco Community College District, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and to establish pass-through rates per 100 of assessed value for residential tenants and based on tenancy commencement dates, pursuant to administrative code chapter 37 for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2025. Same house, same call. The resolution is adopted. Next item, please. Item 15. Ordnance to designate a portion of the sidewalk near the corner of Woodland Avenue at Paranasis Avenue as the site of a future commemorative plaque in honor of the former activists of Woodland Avenue, Jane Morrison, Jack Morrison, Diana Roosevelt, Jake's, Agar Jake's, Grant the Public Works Director Authority to approve the installation and to review all permit application materials and approval of the plaque design by the design review committee of the arts commission to waive permit and inspection fees and to affirm the secret determination. Same house, same call, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Next item, please. Item 16, ordinance to amend the administrative code to establish the greater downtown community benefit district master permitting for entertainment activation program to coordinate and streamline permitting for community benefit district sponsored public events taking place at certain locations. And to designate the greater downtown area, the greater downtown activation program locations as entertainment zones, to allow the offsite consumption of alcoholic beverages purchased at businesses within the entertainment zone during events, to amend the public works code to establish the requirements for the Greater Downtown Activation Program, to amend the fire code, to establish a new permit type for the Greater Downtown Activation Program and to affirm the secret determination. Same house, same call, the ordinance is passed on first reading. Next item, please. same house same call the ordinances passed on first reading next item please Item 17 this is a motion to approve the mayor's nomination for the appointment of Mike Chen to the municipal transportation agency board of directors for a term ending March 1st 2025 Supervisor Stephanie Thank you President Pascon colleagues. I am very excited to support Mike Chen's appointment to the SFMTA Board of Directors. Mike Chen exemplifies the thoughtful research solutions oriented and dedicated perspective that we need in public service. Since I met Mike Chen he has been committed to improving our district two community and all of San Francisco through his varied volunteer roles. And that is what motivated me to point Mike to the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Committee back in 2020. And his experience helped shape recommendations for transit agencies planning and operation citywide. During some of the most challenging years our city has faced. During his role on the SFMTA Citizens Advisory Committee. Mike served as the president for two out of his three years on that committee and clearly demonstrated a well informed grasp of our city's transit system and an ability to lead on these issues. I know that Mike will bring this informed experience and passion for public service while serving on the SFMTA Board of Directors. And I hope you all join me in supporting this qualified candidate for seat on the SFMTA Board of Directors. And I hope you all join me in supporting this qualified candidate for a seat on the SFMTA Board of Directors. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other names on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call. The motion is approved. Next item please. Item 18 is a motion to appoint Morgan Vase Fovelle, Residency Requirement Waved, Carla Nege, Pamela Nagel, Edgar Sachi, Flores, Caroline Scanlon, Residency Requirement Waved, Joshua Clip, and Antonio Moreno, to the Urban Forest Recouncil for the unexpired terms ending November 18th, 2024, and terms beginning November 18th, 2024, and ending November 18th, 2026. in the next year, the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the second is the works commission for a term ending July 2, 2026. Same house, same call. The motion is approved. Madam Clerk, let's go to committee reports, item 21. Item 21 was considered by the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee at a special meeting on Friday, September 20th, and was recommended as amended, bearing the same title as a committee report. Item 21. It's an ordinance to amend the police code to prohibit persons from promoting a vehicle side show or preparations for such side show, to prohibit persons from assembling together to obstruct the streets, sidewalks, highways, or other public right of ways, off street parking facilities or private property and connection with a vehicle side show or preparations for such side show. Prohibit persons from knowingly being present at a vehicle side show or preparations of a side show for purposes of participating in the vehicle side show. To prohibit persons present at a vehicle side show or prepping for such side show, from interfering with official performance of law enforcement duties, to seize and impound vehicles used for such purposes and under certain conditions to sell the vehicles and to make violations of these provisions a misdemeanor subject to the imprisonment and or fine. Supervisor Preston. Thank you, President Peskin. I just wanted to address this item, colleagues. Taking a long look at this ordinance, consult with folks. It does not appear to me to actually do anything beyond clarify that behavior that is already illegal under state law is now made illegal. And I just wanna remind folks, it's already illegal to aid and abet illegal conduct and police can enforce that on any given day in San Francisco. So it is very hard as I went through trying to be charitable with this ordinance to see this as anything other than an election year publicity stunt. It's not only because it doesn't do anything, as they say, because it makes already illegal, conduct illegal, but also inaccurately in the findings, references, has data that's inaccurate, like that San Francisco Police Department sees 67 vehicles in connection to side shows, despite the fact the numbers been clearly disproven in the press, it's actually eight. So it's my hope that finding at minimum will be amended either today or before the second reading. I'll leave that up to the mayor's sponsor and their co-sponsors. So hopefully they will do that just to at least have accurate findings. And I do wanna say, like, I understand the desire to and the need to address side shows, which are dangerous in the community. And I would just urge the mayor to use her power to push for the infrastructure changes that will deter the use of our intersections for side shows and also push for the enforcement of the many laws that already exist on the books, not just the existing state laws, but the four new ones that the governor just this week signed on this topic. And those bills include bills are making it easier to tow vehicles of people who participate or use their vehicles to block traffic for the purposes of enabling a side show and other enforcement, strengthening enforcement. So I, I've got to say I don't really see any benefits from this ordinance at the same time. I don't see any real harm from it either. So I'm happy to support it today because I understand this serious issue. We're trying to address and I know some of my colleagues who have more of this activity in their districts, you know, may feel it important to act. So I'll be supporting it, but again, I don't think it has any real impact. And hopefully we can focus on the things that will have an impact. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Presidents, Supervisor SAFE. I just want to add on a little bit to Supervisor Presidents, Supervisor SAFE. I just want to add on a little bit to Supervisor Presidents point. The thing that was confusing to me when I saw this legislation announced we had just inquired after one of the large side show that happened along the Embarcadero. We inquired because of the legislation that I led a few years ago asking for data and asking for the police department to update us on the number of vehicles that were actually seized due to side shows. The number in 2021 and 22 had gone up exponentially because scars were actually aggressively seized and they had a side show abatement unit that was created. But however, in 2023, that number dropped to just five. And year to date, the actual number was, I think, five or six. The information that was presented in the press release that came off in the mayor's office included reckless driving and other actions not related to side shows in any way. So I think what's important to note is that we actually have some pretty strong laws on the books. If they're enforced aggressively, particularly with all the new technology that we've just approved, it can be done in a very aggressive manner. When people wake up in the morning and their car is gone, after they think they've gotten away with being involved in a reckless side show, I think that's really the message should be spent. I'm not actually sure this legislation will do anything at all to be honest with you. I guess I'll support it somewhat reluctantly, but I would like 100% for the data to be correct. That's presented and the information and the department to be aggressive in actually enforcing the existing laws that are related to side shows. I think every district in the city has been impacted by them. And so those are my thoughts. Thank you, President Peskin. Thank you, Mr. Reveser. FIE, Mr. Reveser Walton. Thank you, President Peskin. Thank you, Vice-Chair, FIE, Supervisor Walton. Thank you, President. Thank you, President Peskin. And I just also wanted to reiterate, Supervisor Sapphaye and I, and this board supported legislation to crack down on side shows a couple of years ago. And to provide the stuff, E and I, if we had it our way, we would be able to repossess cars forever if you're participating in side shows. We asked for astronomical amounts in terms of fines, but we had to comply with state law and we pushed the most aggressive side show legislation that we could, particularly at the time. One of the things that concerns me about this legislation as well is the fact that bystanders can be held accountable. And for sure, if you are organizing and participating in side shows, most certainly this should apply. But I do get concerned about people being overzealous and enforcement and folks who are not participating in side shows and who are caught up geographically in an area that one may be taking place. I just want to make sure that we realize the issues that can come from being overzealous and enforcement when someone may just be in the area. So I wanna make sure that that enforcement understands that, but again, to supervisor president, supervisor South IE's point, I will support it. I do think that we need to make a clear stance on how we feel about side shows, but I don't see how much more impact this would have outside of if we enforce current laws that we already have in place. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Supervisor Walton, Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Peskin. I will just speak to this as a co-sponsor of this and somebody whose name isn't on a ballot and there's no electoral stake I have in it other than representing a district where a lot of this plays out. But I do wanna say, I do think there is value to clarifying some of the provisions of law and I think there is a substantive improvement that could make the to me that it will make the biggest difference is enabling the district attorney if the case is charged to hold the vehicle longer. But I do share others frustration. And I say this with the benefit of any colleague who may be going to Sacramento to have a take a role in the state legislature that it would be nice. If the state legislature would give local governments more authority to use asset forfeiture as my colleague supervisor Walton mentioned to compensate the city for the damage to our infrastructure. There's much of the issues that we face with this, but this stuff is no joke. And this past weekend in Sacramento, two young people lost their lives in a shooting at a side show. There's also Ben in Northern California. It reported instances of people who have been seriously injured and killed in these kinds of lawlessness. And back when I was at the police department. For the two years that I was there there was an instance where there were I think 10 vehicles that were sighted and of the 10 individuals they were all between the ages of 18 and 23. These are not experienced drivers. Not one of them was from San Francisco and I think sending a strong message that San Francisco is not a playground for dangerous misbehavior is really important, but I wish I share everybody's frustration with this. And I hope that the California legislature gives us a little bit more room to maneuver on approaches that we might take on this. Thank you. All right, seeing no other names on the roster, it feels to me like we are going to pass this same house, but we are asking that on the second reading we reflect findings that are true and accurate and supported. Is that the sense of the body and to the mayor's office? Tom, can we get to the bottom of that and make appropriate amendments and it doesn't sound like we're delaying anything crucial because there seems to be a widespread belief that this is more performative than real. Tom Polly, with the Mayor's Office, yes, Mr. President, we can get that for next week. Thank you. All right. We'll take this same house, same call on the first reading. Before we go to our 230 special order closed session, let's circle back to item number 12, because DCYF is in the house. I'm sorry, item 11. And then we have a very rare mid-board meeting closed session, Ms. Sue, to Supervisor Walton. Thank you so much, President Pascon. And thank you, Director Sue, and Director Dorsey for being here this afternoon. My frustrations, I think I've already discussed some of them earlier in this meeting, but I do. Just have some questions and this is most certainly not directed at the Department of Children, Youth and Families, but more so about the lack of trust with the school district and the things that have been taking place particularly in the last six months to a year. So my first question is for fiscal year 2025, we have an allocation of 35 million, but today we're only seeing how 26.5 million is allocated. What is the process for approving the remaining 8 million labeled as technical assistance. Thank you, Commissioner, sorry, supervisor Walton for the question. So in fiscal year 1425, which is the school year, the year that we're in now, we have allocated $26 million of the $35 million that's allocated to us. $26 million goes through the school district to fund several different key buckets that the school district will be utilizing. One is direct funding for school innovation projects. One is to support schools to become an innovation project and one to support the district. One is to support the district on district-wide efforts. There's a small portion of the $35 million that will stay at DCYF, where we will use to support technical assistance and capacity buildings supports for the school district. And then of course to provide any of the data analysis supports. Well, that is the explanation for the $35 million that is in front of you today. And Director Sue, what safeguards are in place to ensure that these innovation funds go to the schools and students with the greatest needs and who makes that decision. So DCYF makes that decision in terms of which schools and what types of programs and activities that the schools can use these dollars to for. The performance measures and outcome measures that you're asking for has actually been vetted at the Budget and Finance Committee with and actually has been developed in conjunction with Supervisor Ronan over the last two weeks where we're putting in more stringent language around performance measures and how we expect the school district to be able to report back to us what they did with those dollars and to which target population did they use those dollars for. And how can we make a decision to release funding now when we know, well we don't know what the complete school portfolio is gonna look like In the district has not given us in the indication unless there's some closed-door conversations that have been had and I would assume Possibly that some of the schools that may be in danger or maybe on the school's list will be schools that maybe could be supported by these resources So how could we make a decision like that in the blind? So first and foremost, we wanted, so the $35 million that's before you is used to support 58 schools. And those schools are the schools that really needed the most. Those are the schools that have, that have met all of our risk metrics and our target population metrics. So first and foremost, they're going to 58 schools. We have not received from the school district a list of school closures or their proposed list of closures. I will say that it's important for us to move these dollars now because there are programs that our children need now, like literacy supports, like math supports. There are some schools that are proposing to use these dollars to bring on more mental health specialists, reading specialists, nurses, so those are really important for our schools and our children now. In terms of moving forward into the future, we can have those conversations about how that would look like, but until that time, we believe that these dollars need to be released now for the schools. So you answered my question about what would be the impact if we didn't approve these resources today? I guess then what safeguards do we have in place or how are we going to address the fact that some of the 58 schools, some of the resources we may approve today, maybe going in a direction where these schools may be closed or may not exist anymore. What are we going to do to account for that? You know, our chief of staff, Sherry Storsy Smith, that's actually spent a lot of time working with the school community as well as our nonprofit agencies to really think through what would it look like when we find out which schools are closing and which schools are the welcoming schools, and how do we use these dollars to support that transition for our school community and for our families? So maybe, Chief of South Dorthy, and Chief of South Dorthy, thank you. Supervisor Watson, so what we're gonna be doing So maybe Chief of Staff Dorsey. Second. Yes. Thank you. Supervisor Walton. So what we're going to be doing once the if, once and if the schools are announced, we'll be doing an analysis on what were the gaps, what are the needs from the closing school, going to the welcoming school, and then ensuring that those resources and services are in place at those welcoming schools. As Ms. C. said, Dr. C. said, we don't know which schools are closing. The schools that were decided, were decided in fiscal year 2324, going into 2425, not knowing what is the state, but we couldn't keep them in stasis. There's plenty of needs in all the schools that were chosen both the readiness and implementation. So as we garner more knowledge, we're going to develop the strategies and processes in order to ensure that the students, the families, the faculty, the admin, the CBOs are all working collaboratively to transition what that might look like through a co-location, merger, closure. We have to wait to see what communities are affected, what schools are affected, what resources and services were at those schools with those families to them and figure out and then understand where those families will be going to figure out how do those dollars follow the kids, follow the families, what does that look like, what makes the most sense? If a whole school is going into another school, then 100% of those dollars could potentially go into a school to continue those supports, whatever that looks like. But when we're operating in the blind until we have more information, we can't move forward. But we're still moving forward with the schools that were identified because they were the highest need schools and ensuring that those community needs plans that they created are able to be carried out. There's T.A. and capacity building for every school around just how to implement that plan as well as if that school for some whatever reason, whatever happens to the school, there's their supports there to help them transition whatever that looks like. So we've already put those items in place in anticipation of what may happen. I mean, to a degree, just for lack of a better term, I feel there's some remnants of a blind check here. And the reason why I say that is because I 100% don't think the district is being transparent. I 100% believe that there are people in leadership at SFUSD that already know what direction they want to go in. They already know what schools they want to close. They already know what schools they want to merge. So it is disheartening and is deceitful to put the city in this situation because the resources are available and we could actually maximize on outcomes if we had that information. I mean the school district has a bond on the ballot right now and they said their guaranteeing that resources will not go to schools that are on the chopping block. How can they guarantee that if they don't know what schools are on the chopping block? So there's a lot of things that are not happening on behalf of collaboration and cooperation from the district. I do appreciate both of you coming in here just to explain where the resources are going. Some of the thought process behind what will do in case some of these schools that will receive resources are actually not schools anymore and what that could look like. And I guess just the last thing, initial resources and per charter, we should be evaluating progress, we should be getting reports. Have we received any reports and information and data from the district on what has already been released? Supervisor Walton, this is going to be the first year that the school district will have access to these grants. So when we initially received the Student Success Fund, it was a small amount, it was $11 million, where we allocated to schools, or we made available to schools for emergency purposes. So some schools use those dollars to put in a new alarm system in their schools, or to, oh my goodness, help me here. They hired safety and support staff around for recess and lunch. They brought in counselors. They've supported some of the CBO providers to do before before school care. So that was the first year of the Student Success Fund and those those activities are trackable and we have them documented. The second year of the Student Success Fund is where we are now. It's the allocation of these dollars directly into schools, so that school community can then start moving on, bringing in the reading specialists, the math specialists, the additional supports that our highest need children in our school district needs the most. The additional support we talk about, that's music to my ears. Because that's what the voters voted to support. Those types of supports. Not to subsidize the district. No. There is actually provision in our charter that the brilliant supervisor Ronan here wrote in that disallowed the school district from supplanting their core funding core staff with our dollars Thank you so much appreciate you both Supervisor Sapphaye Thank you, and I know we're gonna talk more about this next week because we're gonna be calling you all into a special hearing but The thing that concerns me to add onto Supervisor Walton's points is that I hear what you're saying about the dollars might follow, but 6.6 million is designed to create its readiness grants so for the schools that don't have site coordinators. So that's actually physically investing in people to build a capacity of school that then ultimately, and if you look at this list, if you're, you know, there's a lot of rumors flying around, some of the schools that are receiving readiness grants are some of the ones that are potentially targeted for being shut down. So it doesn't make sense to me and to listen, I want to make sure the funds go in the right way that the Student Success Fund was designed. It's designed to be additive and to ensure that we're doing real success in those particular schools that are hurting the most. But some of it is building the infrastructure to support the whole school model. And if we start building up that infrastructure and then that school is building the infrastructure to support the whole school model. And if we start building up that infrastructure and then that school is on the list, then we've just spent millions of dollars on something that is not going to follow those kids. Because you can't then have multiple positions at multiple schools. So it doesn't make sense to me to move quicker than when the school district is actually going to give us a complete list. I can see moving some of this money, but it doesn't make sense to me to move all of this money. And then the other part is innovative initiatives, co-design with schools like. So there's a lot of very specific design on this money that ultimately might not go into implementation because 10 to 14 schools are potentially going to be the ones that are no longer going to be there or they might merge and so I don't know how I don't know how you plan for that without knowing the complete list of information. Thank you Supervisor Safa for the question. I think first and foremost, these are schools that developed a proposal to us. And they worked on it, the school community worked on it because that's the requirement of the charter. Right. So parents, teachers, support staff and leadership at the schools came together and wrote a proposal that said, with these dollars, we're going to do X, Y, and Z. And some of those things could be based on, like, they could be everything from building our students reading capacity. Right. And that, right, that you can take with you, of course. Right. I'm talking about, I mean, part of the reason why we did the Student Success Fund was so many times there are these terminating grants, three years from ex foundation. And there's a lot of infrastructure, a lot of staffing, a lot of support that's built up. And then the funding disappears. And then those positions leave. And the schools left kind of holding the bag. I know a lot of that was intended. Why we did what we did for 15 years was to ensure once we built that infrastructure, that it would be sustained over the next 15 years, but when we have this consolidation or school closure hanging over our head, I mean, do you think it's wise to invest infrastructure like staffing positions and otherwise in a place that might ultimately not be there at the end of the school year? Supervisor Safa, I always think it's wise to support our children, to invest in our children. That's not what I ask. I'm not trying to get political. I'm saying, are you specifically creating a position that is then not going to be a position that's there anymore because the school might not be there anymore? So the positions? Of course I want to invest in our children. The positions that will be created through a grant that we're giving to a particular school would be a reading specialist or a math support or a para. It's, you know, these are people and staffing that the school and the school community need right now. I 100% agree with you that we need to have another conversation when we see the closure list. And we need to ask the school district to make sure that their closure list has a plan that includes transitioning and supporting our families to transition to wherever it is that they're going to. And I want to commit to this body that I am willing to come back and share with you what I know from the school district and the plan that I think Supervisor Walton is pretty much asking is we need to do this together because there's a lot of city dollars That's going over to the school district so the the particular one that I'm talking about is for instance the readiness grant 6.6 million Says designed for the sites that need support to meet the eligibility For student success fund implementation at the end of the grant period, sites are expected to have a community school coordinator in place. That's not a reading specialist. That's not a math specialist. And that is an important element of what we created with the student success fund. So how do you balance that? Exactly. I have our chief of staff answer that. So just to, for your question, so yes, we don't know which schools are closing, but what if the school doesn't close? We have wasted a year or even two years without creating the infrastructure that that school would need to be able to thrive. And so at the end of the two years, this is what we require for readiness grants. At the end of the two years, they need to have a plan of how they are going to move forward with the goals and guard rules that the school district has identified as well as have identified a community school coordinator. That doesn't mean that they have to have higher them yet or they need to be on board but at least have identified and be ready to move forward because school community or community school coordinators can be district staff they can be beacon directors they can be parents who have come on board it's not a school district position so as we're talking about positions for that for school community coordinator it is not a SFUSD position there are several schools right now under the implementation grant where their community school coordinator is the Beacon Director or a site director that has taken on that So it's a nonprofit so it's not necessary correlated with a position with the district and so To answer your question is kind of like it is taking a gamble on Maybe this school will close or maybe it won't and if it doesn't, we wanna make sure that they are ready to then apply for a larger grant, which is the implementation grant. So this, the readiness grants are for schools that have absolutely nothing. They're like bare minimum. They don't even know what to do a way to go. And it's providing the funds and the TA and support to help them get to the point where they have identified. As a school community, this is where we want to go. This is our plan. We have funds to support whatever activities need to be in place to get us there. And we know we'll have funding to then support the position that'll help coordinate. So even though it says, they don't need to hire one this year or above the end of the second year of their grant, they need to have. This is my community school's coordinator and we're now ready to move forward. So maybe it's just presented differently in the BLA report. So Professor, let me, I mean, this has been discussed in committee twice. We have a 230 special order and our PUC general manager has to leave at a time certain, which is why I scheduled it at 230. We have I think three choices. One is we can continue this after our special order. We can send it back to committee or we can call the question right now. Those are our three choices, but we've got to move on. And this has been at committee already was continued twice. That's fine. Supervisor Ronan, brief last words. Yeah, no, I just wanted to say the whole reason this discussion is happening is because the school district didn't reveal on the date that they promised to reveal to families which schools are thinking of closing, which was absolutely a slap in the face to San Francisco families and policy makers. I just wanted to thank Director Sue and Chief of Staff, Dorsey Smith for your work. You all have been handling this brilliantly. I think you're doing it exactly right. We cannot assume that a school is going to close. We have to act as if we are going to do everything on our Power to support the achievement of those kids. And that's what we have to do until we know otherwise. But to continue to keep us in the dark about the future of Schools and I would agree with Supervisor Walton, they know what schools they're planning on closing. Just tell us already so that we can do the planning that we need to do and protect our kids. So thank you so much for all your work. And not to put to fine a point on it or to pile on and not with regard to the item but the impetus behind all of the questions that you're hearing. This was written about in the local newspaper of record on September 15th and on September 16th, the President of the Board of Supervisors got an email from the school district announcing what had been in the paper the previous day. That's where we're at. With that, colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? The resolution is adopted, Madam Clerk, you read item 20 20 please. Thank you. Item 20, this is a closed session for the Board of Supervisors to convene today September 24th at 2.30 p.m. for the purpose of conferring receiving advice from the city attorney regarding existing litigation, the city and county of San Francisco versus the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This closed session was scheduled pursuant to a motion that was approved on September 17th, 2024. Members of the public, I want to apologize to you. This happens almost never. We almost always hold our closed sessions, which are rare in and of themselves, at the end of a Board of Supervisors meeting, not in the end of a board of supervisors meeting, not in the middle of a board of supervisors meeting, but this is a rather extraordinary case with extremely truncated and compressed time frames and a PUC general manager who has a very limited time to talk about a very important case that is pending in front of the United States Supreme Court that we have some decisions to discuss and so I apologize but we are going to go into closed session. You're all welcome to come back but before we do that if there are any members of the public who would like to speak to this item 20 regarding the existing litigation between the city and county of San Francisco and the United States Environmental Protection Agency schedule pursuant to motion M24085. You are welcome to do so not to exceed one minute if you'll line up to your right my left first speaker please. Hello, my name is Ariane Harrison. I'm here today because I want you to uphold the current California environmental laws. So keep in mind that you guys all approved the Clean Water Act. Currently there's 1.6 billion gallons of body fluids that are getting dumped in our bay and along our shoreline. And I'm telling you that we have a seafood industry here. How is that economically feasible besides, you know, us wanting the basics for our community that exist of clean water, clean air water in land? That's not too much to ask for. That's the basics people. Uphold the current environmental laws. We, you know, if you're gonna be the do it first city, and leaders in climate justice, then uphold your law, the Clean Water Act. Thank you, next speaker. I'm the vice chair of the Sierra Club Bay chapter director of the resource from the Institute and resident the outer sunset and someone loves to swim and surf in the ocean. I echo the sentiments of 46 Bay Area Community Environmental Organizations that sign on to our letter to Acissate and this lawsuit against the EPA. Given only have one minute, we have seen San Francisco on average discharge 1.8 billion gallons of raw sewage into the bay each year. And if anything, we need stronger protections if the city does not want to clean up sacks. I've heard a lot from our city leaders about the vision of bringing San Francisco back. Clean water and healthy communities must be a priority rather than an afterthought of a revitalized San Francisco. What made San Francisco great was our courage to stand up for what's right, not what is convenient, to be a leader in the fight for environmental justice and not contribute to the problem. This is a watershed moment for San Francisco, this show if we can ever really come back. I ask you, do not team up with the Supreme Court, save the Clean Water Act, the Sierra Club will not forget and normal this massive coalition here. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is TJ Brown. I'm an action lead with climate change makers SF and a member of the community at 9-0 Which is the community hub for climate downtown that hosted the SF climate week opening ceremony May or breed was scheduled to speak at that event and blew us off the day of with five hours of notice This was an event That took eight months to plan and we had almost 20,000 people attend SF Climate Week in the heart of her city to build coalitions to affect climate change and she couldn't bother to show face. So that wasn't great. According to GrowSF polls, I'm seeing that she's mere percentage points favored to when in November, which is within the margin for error. It's not about the election, it's about the public. I understand, ultimately, people in this city who care about environmental issues are paying attention. And if she stood with the city's environmental groups that would reinforce. Thank you, sir. Next speaker please. Good afternoon, Peter Drakmer with the 12-Amy River Trust. San Francisco V EPA, this could become a very famous and often cited case like Brown and Worcester's Board of Education. San Francisco versus the Environmental Protection Agency, the case that gutted the Clean Water Act. We don't want that. The S.A.P.U.C. Lacks leadership, there are about three or four new commissioners with a total tenure of two to four years. They're not prepared to reverse the ecological crisis on the Tualami River to denitrify waste water so we don't have toxic algae blooms and to clean up these terrible raw sewage spills into creeks that go to the bay and the ocean. Please represent us, stand up. Get rid of this lawsuit. It would be a terrible blemish on the city. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Marcia Nemoini. I'm a retired cancer doctor and a member of the American Public Health Association and a member of the San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility. Access to Clean Water is a public health equity and environmental justice issue. With climate change, sea level rise and rise in the ground water levels, Bay Area residents, especially overburdened communities, are at increased risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals that can cause cancer, lead to poor birth outcome, poor cognitive function and dementia. This is the time when we expect our local officials in the Bay Area put their efforts into strengthening the Clean Water Act. Please ask the city to drop this lawsuit against EPA that puts the Green Mother Act at jeopardy. This is truly dangerous. Thank you. Good afternoon supervisors. My name is Jacob Klein and I'm the organizing director of the CR Club San Francisco Bay chapter, which represents tens of thousands of members who live in the air and care about our local waters. And I'm here to urge you to stop the lawsuit against the EPA. I'm also a lifelong Californian who's lived within 30 minutes of the coast my entire life, and I take the ocean very seriously, which is why I couldn't believe that San Francisco is pursuing a reckless lawsuit against the EPA, which would not only allow y'all to continue polluting the ocean and the bay, but with the current Supreme Court, it could lead to dismantling of one of our bed rocks of environmental policy. The Clean Water Act is a critical piece of policy, and if you got rid of it, it would violate our right to clean water, which protects fragile necessary ecosystems. Help's public health. Clean Water is a human right, and we need to make sure that we are making that happen here and throughout the country. Whatever you all decide good or bad, we will make sure everyone here and across the country knows about it. Thank you, next speaker please. Welcome. Hi, my name is Devon Proctor. I'm a resident of District 4 and I'm also a lifelong Bay Area resident. I'm here to plead with you to please to not side with the Supreme Court and to dismantle the Clean Water Act. It's something that we all hold very dear in California. I know as a somebody who went to UC Santa Barbara and grew up in the Bay Area that access to clean water and clean environments is integral into our enjoyment of our land, but also into the safety of our communities. Please do not make this reckless decision and side with the EPA or against the EPA. Thank you. Thank you, Thank you next speaker Hello, I'm Joni Eisenman SF climate emergency coalition. So this lawsuit not only is it wrong dangerous morally wrong But what really scares me about it is given the current makeup of the Supreme Court. If San Francisco continues this lawsuit, San Francisco will win. And San Francisco, by winning, will lose. We'll lose so much, we'll lose our environmental cred. We'll lose a reputation as being any kind of environmental leader. The whole country will lose because of the Clean Water Act being dismantled. So please don't do it. Thank you. Hi, my name is Dave Rodi. I'm a 42 year resident of San Francisco and currently the San Francisco Policy Co-Chair of the Climate Reality Project. What a travesty. I know many of you feel the same way. The city and county of San Francisco is inchair of the Climate Reality Project. What a travesty. I know many of you feel the same way. The city and county of San Francisco is in violation of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Instead of rectifying the problem, Mayor Breed and City Attorney David Chiu are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for enforcing the rules of the 1974 Clean Water Act. How can anyone in this city say they care about the environment while asking the EPA to let us keep polluting the ocean with sewage and storm water? We should be working with the EPA to protect the ocean and the bay and to set an example for the rest of the country with our environmental vigilance. Instead, we're about to set a very dangerous precedent. If this lawsuit succeeds in the Supreme Court, the least environmentally friendly Supreme Court in decades, it will dismantle everything we've gained in the past 20 years since the Clean Water Act became law. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker please. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Jeff Young. As of resident for since 2011 and former vice chair of the San Francisco Surfrider chapter. Three years ago I woke up feeling the most intolerable pain in my back and chest as if there are several sharp dives piercing my lungs, spent all morning hunchover a trash can, coughing up blood, blood lace mucus. I could barely walk down the stairs without feeling completely wiped out. For nearly five months I battled a severe case of pneumonia, a debilitating illness in near-death experience that traces back to one morning. Morning was just like any other, or so I thought. Brilliant blue day, crisp blue air was out with my friend Serfen and Ocean Beach, home to one the most diverse and vibrant beach cultures and bet finest waves on the planet. As often happens when one recreates in water, I inhaled some water and thought it was fine. What I didn't realize at the time was two days prior, there was a combined sewage overflow. I'm really privileged to be here today showing my story. I have access to medical care. I knew to get medical attention. I know many others around the country. Do not have. Thank you, sir, for your comments. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Once again for your time. Ben, I can bring staff attorney with San Francisco Baykeeper. I'm here with my colleagues and members and supporters to ask the Board of Supervisors to take action to prevent San Francisco from seriously weakening the Clean Water Act, one of our country's most important environmental laws. As you know, this case has San Francisco's name on it. And the state of California and leading environmental groups are taking EPA side while a rogue's gallery of extractive industries like the National Mining Association are backing San Francisco. Please don't wait until it's too late to protect the city's good name. The time is now to pass a resolution for the city to withdraw its lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next week. Good afternoon. My name is Tim Eichenberg. I've taught Ocean and Coastal Law for 25 years and represented California State coastal agencies. I'm appalled and disappointed that the city as that touts its environmental record and policies as a joint forces with polluters and special interests to eliminate an essential provision of the Clean Water Act. These San Francisco is asking a conservative Supreme Court for permission to discharge sewage and harmful pollutants into the bay that violate state water quality standards. These water quality standards are an essential backstop when effluent limits are inadequate to protect public health and ensure that local water bodies are safe to swim and fish. San Francisco is appealed if it's granted granted sets a dangerous president not only for our waters but for the waters throughout the country for all the rivers lakes and streams into which pollution is discharged under the Clean Water Act. So I urge you to protect our health and safety and one of our nation's most important environmental laws and abandoned this destructive appeal. Thank you. BEEP. My name's Kathy Willis. I'm a long-term resident. I love this city. I volunteer with SF Refuse Refuses, picking up trash and trying to keep microplastics out of the bay. I volunteer with the Surfrito organization, sampling water, and India basin. I love the new parks, and I worry that people who play in them may get pink eye and skin rashes. I'm upset with our current Supreme Court who seems to think that legislatures know better than our professionals and our agencies and I'm horrified and embarrassed that San Francisco is part of assuming the EPA. Thank you. Please don't support it. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Becca Morrow. I'm a resident of the outer sunset, a surfer, and a wetland scientist. I am deeply concerned about San Francisco's impending lawsuit against the EPA. Fifty years ago, the Kuyahoga River in Ohio infamously burst into flames 13 times. Two-thirds of our lakes, rivers and coastal waters became unsafe for fishing or swimming. Congress then passed the Clean Water Act. Dismentalign, the Clean Water Act is a direct attack on the working class. It would plunge our communities back into an era of unchecked pollution, jeopardizing not only public health and wildlife, but also the livelihoods of millions of Americans. Fisherman tourism and agricultural laborers that depend on clean water for their jobs and survival. Relying slowly on local legislation to regulate water with qualities, a recipe for disaster, it creates a patchwork of protections that leaves vulnerable working class communities to the whims of partisan politics. In areas where conservative legislation prioritizes corporate interests over public health, we risk returning to the days of flammable rivers and toxic lakes. This is not hyperbably, it's the reality that we are facing. I urge you not to pursue this lawsuit. The Clean Water Act is a cornerstone of a- Thank you for your comments. Hello. My name is Spentertrose. I am a resident of the Ottersons at Neighborhood in San Francisco. I am an avid surfer and frequently swim in the bay. I am asking that you drop this lawsuit against the EPA and protect the Clean Water Act. San Francisco is supposed to be a progressive and environmental leader and this lawsuit is permanently ruining its reputation. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Mary Butterwick. I'm a resident of San Francisco in District 7. San Francisco has petitioned the Supreme Court to review provisions of the Clean Water Act in PDS permit for the ocean side wastewater treatment plant having to do with the protection of designated uses, such as water contact recreation and protection of aquatic life in the coastal receiving waters. San Francisco needs to be held directly accountable for the effects of its discharges on the receiving waters. The Clean Water Act clearly gives EPA in the state board the authority. Yet the subject lawsuit risk weakening the Clean Water Act with nationwide repercussions. Please end San Francisco's misguided lawsuit against the EPA. Thank you. Hello, my name is Jennifer Ramirez. I'm also a resident of the Adder Sunset neighborhood. I live two blocks away from the ocean where I spend a lot of my time. This lawsuit will hurt us, our neighbors in the bay, and the entire country. If San Francisco wins this case, the result could be the end of the Clean Water Act as we know it. A bad ruling could open the floodgates for more pollution in our waters across the country, affecting everything from the beaches we swim in to the watery drink. I'm deeply asking that San Francisco drops this lawsuit. Thank you. BEEP. Hello, my name's Cameron Norrin. I'm a resident of San Francisco. Myself, my friends, my family. We all love the Bay, swimming it. For recreation, our livelihood in some cases. Just one urge you to drop the lawsuit. We should be standing out for environmental protection. It's not tearing them down. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hi, my name is Nicole Van Abel, and I'm a San Francisco resident in District 8. I have a PhD in Environmental Microbiology, specializing in water quality. Specifically, I've assessed the risk of recreating and contaminated waters around the world. Thus I know firsthand the adverse public health impacts that can result from people unwittingly recreating in water contaminated by raw sewage. Thus I am upset by San Francisco's decision to challenge the EPA instead of taking all steps possible to protect public health. San Francisco is supposed to be a city that is progressive on environmental issues, but is instead aligned with oil mining gas and plastic in this challenge to the EPA. The long-term ramifications could be the end of the Clean Water Act as we know it and the degradation of the water quality environment in San Francisco and nationwide. Thus I asked the Board of Supervisors to drop this lawsuit against the site and see if I can correct. Hello, my name is Lou Geone and I'm a resident of Palolto and I swim and dive in these waters and directly rely on the clean water act for a safe environment to enjoy these activities. San Francisco wins this case at the Supreme Court, the result could be the end of the Clean Water Act as we know it. A bad ruling would result in toxic waste polluting our waters across the country, affecting everything from beaches to the water that we drink. I'm asking the Board of Supervivors to urge the mayor and David Chiu to drop the lawsuit against the EPA and protect the Clean Water Act. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter. I have a PhD in microbiology. I live in the outer sudsad and I've lived in the Bay Area for 10 years. This lawsuit against the EPA threatens to degrade water quality in our city and in our bay. What compels me to speak here today is that by bringing this lawsuit to the United States Supreme Court, San Francisco jeopardizes environmental protections for the entire country. I ask you all to urge the mayor and David Chu to drop this lawsuit against the EPA and protect the Clean Water Act. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Bill Martin. I'm a San Francisco resident in District 11, and I'm a volunteer activist resident in District 11 and I'm a volunteer activist with the Sierra Club. Please drop this lawsuit. There's one simple reason. The entire country will suffer if the right wing US Supreme Court, six members appointed by Republican presidents. If this Supreme Court guts the Clean Water Act as fully expected, we will be the agents of change in a very negative direction. Drop this lawsuit now. Thank you. Hi, my name is Nancy Roberts. I'm a district 7. Can you pull that microphone? Sure. Closer. Thank you. Sorry, my life. I'm a district 7 resident since 2001. And I hold a green MBA. I work for a communications agency that focuses exclusively on environmental programs and behaviors. I know how difficult it is to create really good and effective regulations to enact our laws, but the question here is really simple. Will this lawsuit improve our water quality? No, it will not. Will dropping this lawsuit be essential to preserve our environment and to help people? Yes, it is. I'm asking you to use your powers to drop the suit and look at what's really important, our water and our people. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Eva. I am born and raised in the Bay Area, and having lived in almost every city that touches these waters, it's not only important like the Clean Air Act is really important for the access to clean water, the ocean in and of itself, but this is really what makes home home for me and many of my neighbors. It's what makes California a leader that it's historically been. And this showing today, I mean, it's really just the tip of the iceberg, as mentioned previously by the Chair of the Board. This is an unprecedented case, an unprecedented timeline, and you can imagine how much pushback you would get from many activists and organizers on the ground had this been dealt with differently. So I urge the Board to drop the lawsuit. Thank you. Hi, my name is Eliza Nemser. I am a PhD geoscientist. I am the Executive Director and a co-founder of Climate Changemakers and nationwide climate advocacy organization. And I am a mom. I'm a resident of San Francisco, my children's swim in the ocean, and every other individual swimming in the ocean is the child of someone else. Our families and our communities need to rely on our bedrock environmental laws, and we need to rely on our elected officials to uphold those laws. I'm urging you to withdraw the lawsuit and get San Francisco on the right side of history. Thank you. My name is Bill Clark speaking from the Friends of Mission Creek perspective. Broad EPA guidelines are designed to allow for flexibility in meeting a variety of regulatory scenarios. By inviting the Supreme Court to impose clarity on the current violations and thereby upending the entire regulatory playing field, San Francisco is making a selfish mistake. Under mine in the EPA, we only serve to bog down their agility and negotiating power affecting future SF projects, including necessary upgrades to meet the challenges of climate change and sea level rise. We are asking that a negotiated settlement with the EPA be reached now. We can't afford legal delay tactics to install vital sewer system upgrades in our obligation to preserve a pollution-free bay. Good afternoon. My name is Liz Stebans and I am a resident of District 5 and I'm a fishery scientist. I swim in the bay, I work on the conservation of fish species that migrate through the bay out to the ocean and I'm deeply concerned about plunds in our waters. Clean water is a basic right and the Clean Water Act is a bedrock piece of environmental legislation. San Francisco is supposed to be an environmental leader. It's incredibly damaging to take this lawsuit to a Supreme Court that has already acted to curtail the power of regulatory agencies like the EPA. I urge you to ask the mayor and David Schu to drop the lawsuit. Thank you. Hello, my name is Tiffany Pfeiffer and I'm an SF resident in District 4. I serve at Ocean Beach, volunteer at the Marine Mammal Center and I'm a certified naturalist with the Greater Fairlands Association. I'm asking the Board of Supervisors to ask the city to drop the lawsuit against the EPA. I believe clean water isn't just an environmental issue, It's a basic right for all humans and other species. Back in the World War era, heavy water pollution caused our local species, the harbor purpose to disappear from the Bay, our SF Bay, for nearly a century. It wasn't until the enactment of the Clean Water Act that led to the cleaner water and eventually the return of the harbor purpose to the SF Bay. Today a healthy population of the harbor purpose is observed and celebrated by residents, visitors, scientists, and lovers of life. I'm always proud to share this story. Let's drop the lawsuit and protect the Clean Water Act so we can share more stories about our healthy water. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Hi, there, I'm Eva Holman. I'm a D1 resident in lifelong San Francisco, and I'm here representing the League of Conservation Voters, Surfighter San Francisco, and also my family and my community. And I'm here to implore you to always strengthen never-week in regulation to manage and reduce waste and pollution the ocean and in the San Francisco Bay. Last night I watched my 12-year-old son a student in middle school swim at China Beach with his six friends, a seal, dolphins, sea lions and pelicans, and implications of this lawsuit really hit home. Our ocean and bay are already poisoned by microplastics, tire fragments, pesticides, toxic algae blooms, human waste, PFAS and more, with the protections currently in place. Let's increase not decrease regulations to keep our waters clean. Thank you. Hello. My name is Olivia Van Dam. I'm a resident of District 4 in the outer sunset. I've been in the Bay for 10 years. I'm a surfer swimmer. I am also an environmental educator and have worked with nonprofit organizations and currently work at the California Academy of Sciences. My whole life has been dedicated to bringing people to the ocean for the benefits of mental health and recreation. How can I do this and share with children in the next generation when we have our own city leaders who are trying to sue the EPA and minimize the regulations that are here. We need to move towards more working with indigenous communities, native ways of knowing, thinking about how we can continue these protections. So I please ask you to drop this lawsuit so that all of us can enjoy the benefits of being in the Bay and in the ocean. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. My name is Madoka and I'm actually a resident of Oakland. I crossed the bridge today to make it to this meeting. I'm a surfer myself and I've struggled with multiple ear infections every time I surf at specific beaches. I no longer go to those spots. We've also recently had closures of Balenos beach due to sewage leakages. So this is an issue that directly impacts me as an individual. I'm also here today representing Salta Drude, a local nonprofit based in Oakland. Our mission is to increase access to the coast and to surfing for black indigenous and communities of color in Oakland. We all know that environmental racism is a real thing that the implications of this lawsuit will impact communities of color the most. So I am just here to ask the City of San Francisco to halt this lawsuit. It is not a good decision. Please use your power wisely. We trust you to do so and advocate for the health of our planet and the health of your constituents. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Ellie Struby and SF resident in the Richmond District who surfs, swims and supports sustainable fishing practices in the Bay and relies on the Clean Water Act. Coming from Florida where things like water, contamination, reporting bills have been vetoed, I firsthand seen what happens when our rivers ocean, bays, estuaries and streams are not protected and I can tell you it is devastating to witness. I moved here with the hopes to learn from San Francisco as this city has always been the leader environmental practices. We all deserve clean water and safe shorelines. It's a basic human right and vital for our health and communities. Right now, San Francisco officials, who we look up to as environmental leaders are backing a lawsuit that could destroy the Clean Water Act. This isn't just about policy, it's about protecting our water, our beaches, our health, and other polluters. If they win, it could mean more pollution, not just here, but across the country impacting everyone, especially vulnerable communities already facing environmental injustices. We can't let San Francisco help dismantle one of our most important environmental protections, clean water. Thank you. There we go. All right. How's it going? My name is Drew Madsen. I'm a Richmond resident. And I represent the Blue Water Task Force from the San Francisco Surfrider Chapter. My program in our overall chapters goal is to fight for clean water for all. The laxining of Clean Water Act through the lawsuit is going to open the floodgates for potential harm to our communities and specifically to our communities of color. We've already heard from our folks over in Baby Hunters Point. While not in San Francisco specifically, my recently was reached out by our neighbors in Oakland, specifically Fruitvale, where they are dealing with issues due to pollution. These communities are dealing with lower life expectancy, higher rates of asthma, cancer, lots of different health risks that are involved in their all stemming from pollution. The pollution not only affects our waterways and also affects the air we breathe. I'm from San Diego, where they have recently discovered that pollution from this Tijuana river as well has been actually affecting air quality and getting residents sick. So all to say we need to not laxenize laws if we care about our communities and our residents and their health. Thank you. I'm Sarah Greenwald representing 350 San Francisco at 350 Bay area. Two points I think have not been mentioned yet. First of all, San Francisco will not save money if it wins this suit. California is in the suit and California will make the city quit dumping sewage in the water. So there's no getting out of it. Two, San Francisco is partnered in this lawsuit with the American Gas Association if you wonder why. That's because the Clean Water Act regulates fracking. You've heard how the Clean Water Act is going to get ruined because the Chevron Deference makes it possible for the court to just destroy it now, using this case as a insult. So if, as a test case, if you wonder whether you're doing the right thing, always take a look at who you are in bed with. We're just going to live by. Thank you. Good afternoon honorable supervisors. My name is Lane Fijoe, and I'm speaking to you today on behalf of Sierra Club California. And as a resident of District 9, I'm here today to ask that you demand that mayor Breed and city attorney Chiu drop to SFPUC lawsuit against the EPA. It's no coincidence that joining the lawsuit against the EPA is an army of industrial lobbying groups representing the mining, plastic, gas and oil industries. It's also no coincidence that the lawsuit cites sack the EPA. The decision issued by our fire rights Supreme Court last year, decimating the ability of the EPA to regulate water ecosystems. This code has a proven track record of annihilating the regulatory of the EPA to regulate water ecosystems. This scotus has a proven track record of annihilating the regulatory power of our most important environmental statutes. And the city of San Francisco is playing right into their hands. So please demand that the SFPUC drop their lawsuit to preserve the efficacy of the Clean Water Act nationally. Don't give scotus the ability to gut the Clean Water Act under the city of San Francisco's name. Don't help industrial polluters in their quest to escape culpability for their pollution and most importantly, do the right thing and protect communities and ecosystems. Thank you. Can we have a next speaker? Strict five in San Francisco and I'd like to reiterate the points of my peers here that this lawsuit is extremely harmful and disproportionately harmful to communities of color and those who are lower income. If we want to create a city that has opportunity for all, then we need to ensure that we have clean water for all. Thank you. Hi, I'm Carolyn Chang. I'm representing the Sierra Club's Hermesisco Bay chapter as the local organizer working on water issues. And like all people that came before me, I'm here to ask you as our elected officials to please get the city to drop this dangerous lawsuit. Yeah, I've been working here in the Bay on issues of nutrient pollution, which is basically sewage pollution into the Bay. I don't even know why I'm up here asking you to address that, because it's just so clearly wrong. And I've also worked with other communities around the Bay who work on toxic sites that are on shorelines that need to be cleaned up. As others have mentioned, there's already so much pollution that we're dealing with in the Bay and weakening these regulations that San Francisco residents rely on, that other Bay-wide residents that like I work with rely on to keep themselves safe is just extremely dangerous and will just cause premature death and health issues. So those are the stakes and I hope you recognize that and use your power to drop this lawsuit. Thanks. Hello President Peskin and Board of Supervisors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. My name is Nina Atkind. I am a proud district for resident and I serve as the manager of the Surferta Foundation San Francisco chapter. One of 80 chapters nationwide with over 65,000 members dedicated to protecting our oceans, waterways, and beaches. You've heard from many Surferta members here today as well as our coalition organizations, activists who have spent countless hours working to protect our waters and the communities that depend on them. Our volunteers spend their free time testing for fecal contamination in the water. The first speaker, Aryan Harrison, director of the Marie Harrison Foundation, has been fighting her entire life to defend her community in Bayview Hunters Point from every type of environmental pollution imaginable. We cannot make it easier for any of our communities to be polluted. As elected officials, it is your duty to protect public health and the environment. Please stop the dangerous lawsuit and work towards solutions that will clean our waters and safeguard. I'm going to go back to the next slide. Hello, my name is Nancy Wu, a Native San Francisco and live in District 8 and also a former associate director of the water division at EPA. I am now retired and voluntary my time with the San Francisco Bay Keeper. keeper. So they ask us first because we have short time. Please with your voice and the public that has testified so far, please urge Mayor Breach to drop this lawsuit. It is not just what is a jeopardy in San Francisco but is what is in jeopardy for the Clean Water Act across the country. So if you further weaken, and I hate to have San Francisco's name associated, affiliated with that, the Clean Water Act by calling for greater specificity in the Niptees Permit, it would weaken the overall Niptees Permitting Program across the country. So this is why it is such a significant lawsuit. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Next speaker. Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Haber. I'm a resident of District 7. And I'm a member and speaking today for two local climate and environment organizations, 350 San Francisco and Bay Area, and San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition. We want to thank Supervisor Melgar for taking action and bringing greater transparency and attention, both to this damaging lawsuit and the state of the sewer and water systems in San Francisco. We also appreciate the board's consideration and urge you to advocate for the dropping of the lawsuit to the mayor and the city attorney. San Francisco must lead and serve as a model on climate and a clean environment, not seek to shirk the responsibilities of providing clean water and a clean environment to all. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is John Anderson. I'm a resident of District 2. This year, I've been volunteering for the Democratic Party, canvassing mostly in Reyno, in the Central Valley. I've knocked on over 100 doors so far. In 22, I knocked on over 1,000, so still got a ways to go, but I'll get there. And I have to say, the biggest obstacle is the people who say it doesn't matter who I vote for. They don't care about the environment, they only care about getting elected. And this suit is such a powerful argument for that. I couldn't come up with a better one, almost, if you wrote it out. So in November, if there is a red sweep, we will be responsible for change. Thank you for your comments. And just to everyone who's spoken here this afternoon, my apologies if we interrupt you, we are setting the timer for one minute. Welcome, sir. Hi, my name is James Park and I live in District 4. And I read a news article recently that said San Mateo had the most polluted beaches in California and I felt fairly smug about that until I realized that the Alaska current sweeps are affluent right down onto their beaches and I would ask that we not be the ones to turn our bay into a catty-shack swimming pool without the baby roost. Thank you for your comments. So, why is this? It is a shame that this great city is trying to defy the environmental protection agency. It is a shame that we have been informed by hundreds of notice of violations. Only a fool would defy and neutralize the Clean Water Act. Let us not be fools. So I'm asking the mayor and those who are supporting her in trying to neutralize the Clean Water Act clean water act to stop to stop this nonsense and you both of supervisors have listened to everybody please pay attention for commissioners at SIPUC. Thank you for your comments. Welcome to the next speaker. My name is Joelle May. I'm a little nervous. I would just like to say as an extreme understatement, we live in a very legitimate society where we get up every morning and decide who we're going to sue. And I would just like to comment on your suing the city of Oakland over the airport change name. It's kind of not necessary. And thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello, my name is Peterson Harder. I'm a San Francisco resident, a small business owner and a surfer. I just recently found out about this lawsuit and just very disheartening. It's very embarrassing. I moved to this city as a fashion of hope and progressivism and you hear something like this and makes me think as a small business owner why would I want to stay here when you're making decisions like this. And at a time like this when we need business owners like myself, what are we doing? It just makes no sense to me. Especially from a national standpoint, San Francisco people look at San Francisco as the defining errors of doing the right thing. And now we're taking steps backwards. It's 2024 and we are suing the EPA. Like let that sink in. San Francisco are suing the EPA. Like let that sink in. San Francisco is suing the EPA. So I would like for you to think about what is going on here. Go home. If you have kids, talk to them and see if you want them to live in a world where they can't go in ocean between more. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next speaker, welcome. Thank you. My name is Renee. I live in District 11. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Renee. I live in District 11. I only learned about this yesterday. I'm not sure why. I only learned about this yesterday. But I have to say it was one of the most shocking things I think I've learned about because our city is not like this. Bluntly, we should be embarrassed that we're part of a lawsuit against the EPA. It is short-sighted, it is cowardly, and it is reckless. And this will have consequences for the rest of the country. So I think we need to stop being myopic and selfish and think about outside of our own city and the consequences that this will have for the rest of the country. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Patricia Boy, District two, District five, and District one. I'm objecting to this for another reason. If you take the balance of power from the EPA with the city, you're going to have problems. I want you to think about this thoroughly. Right now I'm dealing with three departments, four departments of this city that did something behind everyone's back. And far and far a project that's going to cause more problems with the water. I'm dealing with the city, two departments of this city that decided to sell our beautiful Hitch Hitchhitchhick water to other counties and give us filtered water. I am extremely upset about this because I have to boil my water now. I want you to see take a look. Thank you for your comments. Nice to see you. My name is Ador Duffy. I want to follow what Mr. DeCosta said and I want to add that I've never been on the Public Utilities Commission. I've never been an appointment to them, but I'm proactively resigning from any future appointment to the public utilities commission that I might sometimes get. So finally, I don't know anything about this. It doesn't matter. I remember everybody's under arrest. We are not allowed. It is not allowed to mess with water. So, I just have a problem. Apparently, I know that everything the mayor is doing is wrong, because she didn't push responsibility on critical thinking, no matter what. So, now, you need to hold on. That's it. Hold on. I've got a problem with the thing, because you don't seem honest. You are reading a script. It's fishy. PhD, you should know what you are talking about. Is this clear? You are under arrest, so you just hold on. We don't mess with the elements. Water, the skies, obviously, I'm here for, from them. Fire, food, that. food that is more important food poisoning okay we don't mess with water good afternoon supervisors Eric Brooks our city San Francisco and the San Francisco Green Party as many of you know I've been a grassroots organizer in San Francisco for 30 years now. I've been coming to City Hall that long. I've fought many unacceptable battles against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the most notable of which was it carrying water for PG&A and blocking our local clean energy program for more than a decade. And they're still having to be dragged kicking and screaming into building local clean energy program for more than a decade and they're still having to be dragged kicking and screaming into building local clean energy. But this thing is the most evil effing thing I have ever seen the SFPUC or any entity in the San Francisco government do. They are literally following the Trump Supreme Court playbook and it makes me wonder if some of them are pitching for positions in Trump's cabinet if he wins. This is outrageous and you need to stop it and then you need to turn the SFPUC into an elected body. Thank you, Eric Brooks, for your comments. Before the next speaker, we're just going to announce that if there's anyone here to speak specifically to the closed session and the existing litigation with the United States Environmental Protection Agency please step on over to the curtains and we'll take your public comment. Ma'am, let's hear from you now. Welcome. Hi my name is Lolly Lewis. San Francisco is the most beautiful city in the world. What are you thinking? I swear I'm this morning in the bay and it was so beautiful. I'm so grateful to live in this city. Please don't throw our reputation away. Please don't throw our clean water away. Please get out of this lawsuit. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Seeing no other members of the public for this item number 20 public comment is closed. We will now go into close session deliberations. Madam Clerk. S.F. Gov. TV San Francisco Government Television I'm going to be a little bit more beautiful. I'm going to be a little bit more beautiful. I'm going to be a little bit more beautiful. I'm going to be I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm Thank you. Thank you. you I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. you I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna to be a little bit more careful. you I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I am Maryam Mudruglu, Chief of Protocol for the City and County of San Francisco. Distinguished guests, elected officials, Supervisor Dorsey, I see you. We are so thrilled to welcome you to the San Francisco City Hall, the People's Palace, like I said, the Toto's to celebrate El Grito the Independence Year. We especially thank Council General Vallejo for all the work and the entire Council staff and the city staff and our community members for their hard work in putting together this very special event. We have a great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, Brazil, Austria, Korea, and Singapore. Thank you so much for being here. Please, round of applause for our councils. It is my honor to present a very special person, our speaker today. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to introduce fucking Taurus, the Sessar recorder for the city and county of San Francisco and a friend elected in this position in February 2022, Mr. Torres previously served as director of the Office of Economics and Workforce Development, where he played a pivotal role in supporting businesses and workers through the challenges of COVID-19 pandemic. His unwavering dedication in fostering growth and creating opportunities has made a profound impact across San Francisco, benefiting small businesses, local nonprofits, and the broader community. It has been a pleasure working with Joaquin himself and please welcome to the stage. Grito de la Independencia, aquí en San Francisco. It's great to see so many brown faces here in City Hall. Is it not? Oh! Oh! Of course, I want to say a very big and heartfelt congratulations to our honorary honorable consul general Ana Vallejo. Felicitades, we're so excited to be supporting you in this time as you begin your tenure here and continue it in San Francisco. It's an honor for all of us to continue the partnership between San Francisco and the Americas, especially through Mexico and your service. Thank you so much. All of us tonight are honored to be here to join not only the Mexican Consulate, but of course Mission Neighborhood Centers who will speak in a moment, as well as all of the Mexican nationals, and San Francisco in the region, to celebrate this historic cry of the Lores El Grito. Mayor Breed is also looking forward to seeing all of you on Sunday, the 15th to celebrate the official El Grito in Civic Center Plaza, marking the 214th anniversary of Mexico's independence. We also wanna take a moment. Of course, please, on a plasso por favor. just did the other Latin American country celebrating independence as well, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, whose independence days are also on Sunday, and of course Chile, who is celebrating theirs on September 18th. El Grito de Independencia honors the battle cry for equity and the redistribution of land. And it's a call that would start that long road to independence. Our connection to Mexico is deeply personal. Personal for so many of us. And to me, with many of you here today, because like many Mexican-American families, our stories began with grandparents or parents who immigrated here to California seeking a brighter future for their family, for wages to support their dreams. Dreams of a home, dreams of opportunity, dreams of raising a family and supporting their loved ones, freedom to live a good life, much like what the revolutionaries fought for so many hundreds of years ago. These aspirations are not achieved alone. They require the partner and the power of coalitions, that require the partnerships of strong leaders and allies. And I know and I believe that San Francisco is proud to have such a leader and an ally for our community, and the Mexican-American community, and Latino communities in Mayor Breed. Because of her leadership and her investments, our city continues to build affordable housing and because of it, there are so many Latino immigrants who have a safe and secure place to call home to raise their families and secure those futures for themselves and the generations who come after them. And to know that in San Francisco they will and do and always shall have a place called San Francisco that is a sanctuary for them. May your breeds investment in our city, in our communities, in our small businesses, our families and our youth are important to us forever, as Latino communities who want to see our self-strengthen and continue in the fabric of America, in California, and here in our city. Ensuring that incentives and resources are available and accessible and equitably so to encourage Latinos to fulfill those dreams here in our city. And she also understands that representation matters. I want to take a moment to say not only that myself who was first appointed and then elected by Mayor Breed after serving with her in a leadership role, but also most recently, we have our city college trustee who was recently appointed Luis Amorra, whose family is from Amitrao Acanseyi and also a recent commissioner select in Josh Arce who we hope to see represent us on the public utilities commission. There are so many other representatives that the mayor has supported from our community who run departments whether we talk about working around entertainment or we talk about economy or civic engagement and immigrant affairs and throughout those departments to ensure that our community has a place and a person to reach out to that they know because they see them so specifically in our communities and know that we have their interest in mind in English, in Spanish, in language, in cultural competency. You can see also the vibrant contributions from Latino artists and activists. The murals that are painted not only by Mexicans, but Central American artists that you see throughout the streets of our communities, and La Mision, and other places, the world renowned celebrations that we celebrate that make us the global icon that we are here in San Francisco. Of course, our city's famous low-rider exhibitions that pop up continuously. Muchise Masgratsuya, Roberto Hernandez for the work that you and community leaders do to make that possible. The representation of our labor leaders who ensure that our people who are doing the work that support our city and strengthen it also know that we are representing them with faces and places and names that they know and they recognize. And we are proud Latinos and proud San Francisco who are carrying those same values, that same pride, that same love for our culture, for our culture, in everything that we do to shape the future for the better of everyone in San Francisco. So to all of you, take a moment to think about those family members that you love, whose legacies that you carry, to the future that you wish for those who come after us by the work that we do today. So to all of us, to remember the power of what it means to be a Mexican, the power of what it means to be a Mexican American, the power of what it means to represent the best of our culture and community, give all of you and yourselves a hand in celebrar del escrito de la independencia and the weekend, we will all celebrate together. Viva México, viva México, viva México. And with that, I would like to bring Maryam back up for a presentation that we will make. And along with our consul general, Ana Vallejo, por favor. Applause Council general, it is our pleasure on behalf of Mayor London Breet to present you this proclamation that September 15th it is Mexican-American Heritage and Friendship Day. Congratulations, and thank you. Here's one. It is now my honor to welcome our new Council General for Mexico in San Francisco, Anna Vallejo. Council General Vallejo brings with her a distinguished career in the Mexican Foreign Service. Her extensive experience in international cooperation, political affairs, and coastal services makes her an invaluable addition to our community here in San Francisco. And it's been already an absolute pleasure getting to know her and working with her. We are so thrilled to have you, Council General Anavayao, please. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, these are all. Thank you for being here with us tonight. Good afternoon. We're not tardes at all. Thank you for being here with us tonight. We are truly honored to have with us parking Torres as a recorder of the City of San Francisco and Maria Moodlewood, Chief of Protocol of the City of San Francisco. Today, we gather to celebrate the rich history of vibrant culture of Mexico. It is with great pride and joy that I stand before you on this special occasion, Mexican National Day, a day of independence, unity and resilience. Two thousand and four years ago, Mexico's heroes took the boldest step of proclaiming our independence, standing up for the values of liberty and justice. As we wave our flags, think our anthem, and gather with family and friends, let us remind that Mexican National Day is also a time to reflect on the values that unite us as a people and community, and they believe that together we can overcome any challenge. Here in the beautiful city of San Francisco, we have the unique opportunity to bring that spirit across borders, celebrating our heritage in this amazing city, renowned of its diversity and openness. I am also thrilled to be here and to mark this celebration as the beginning of my tenure as Consul General. My vision is to foster a dynamic and close collaboration with all of you, our partners. To enhance Mexican art, culture, music, community engagement, commerce and innovation. We have a spectacular opportunity to bring all together the traditions of Mexico with the creativity, openness and innovation that defines San Francisco. Make we continue to build bridges between cultures, create a nice space where our stories, art, and contributions are recognized, where our traditions are honored and where our future is brighter than ever. As we shout, Biva Mexico. Biva. Biva. Biva. Thisiva. Biva. This evening, let it be a reminder that we are part of something greater than ourselves. We are the ears of a proud and noble history, and it's our responsibility to continue to build a future full of hope, opportunity and progress. So let us celebrate with joy, with passion, and with pride in who we are. Viva México. Viva. Viva nuestra independencia. Viva el futuro que construiremos juntos. Viva. Viva. Viva México. Viva. Viva. Viva. Viva. Viva. Viva. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have Mexico. We have one more speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, Richard Barra. Please join me in welcoming Richard, CEO of Mission Neighborhood Centers, with extensive experience serving low-income, multi-cultural communities, and collaborating with California's political leaders. We are honored to have him with us today, Richard. APPLAUSE Buenos tardes. Buenos tardes. Now I can start. What a pride, what honor to be here to give the welcome to the general council and also to recognize the work of the Mexican Consulate. At the same time, I welcome all the consular of the other countries, especially from Latin America and also from other parts of the world. I también no te as partos el mundo. It's really a pleasure to be here today in an honor to represent MNC in Spirando Exico to welcome our Council General to recognize her fabulous staff here that does such great work and to also acknowledge and welcome all the other consulates from the other countries, especially those from Latin America. It's such an honor to be here with an applause for all of them, please. It's also great to be here with always with Joaquin Torres. Joaquin is the nephew of the great Richard Alatorre, who he and I and a thousand other people put to rest a few days ago in Los Angeles. Richard A. Torres, long with Joaquin's father, Art Torres, are two of the greatest pioneers of Latino politics in California history. And we can't take anything from them. Thank you. I was honored to know them both when I was just a junior in college when I first met them. So it was really good. It's always good to see my friend and dear brother, Joaquin. I think it's really important also to mention that MNC is grateful to be here. A couple of years ago, Josh Arshley asked us to put together the mayor and the Mexican consulate because the previous consul general was a friend of mine, San Diego 15 years ago. And we did for the first time in 42 years this event got together. And we're really excited to be there. We're excited to be part of the putting it together every year. It's such a pleasure to be here with so many community leaders. All of you who've done so much in this, one of the greatest cities in the world. A little applause for San Francisco. I think we need a little more love for San Francisco. But all of you who've done so many great things continue to do great things to make this one of the great cities of the world. I applaud you for being here to welcome our Council General and to know that I'm together with a lot of people who are the defenders of diversity. The diversity of Mexico, the diversity of the United States, the diversity of all of us here from different parts of the world who make this melting pot what it is, who make this country, the greatest country in the world and the success it's become. So I want to thank all of you for that. Again welcome everyone and just say it is such a pleasure to be here as Joaquin mentioned as a as a grandson of Mexican immigrants from four different states. Sacateca Sonora Juanajuato and Cinaloa. I praise them all. My grandfather Juan Gonzales was fought with Panchovia, came here, he led the first ever, I gotta mention him, because he led the first ever school desegregation suit in San Diego County in Llamon Grove in 1930. He never had documents, he fought, and the Mexican consulate helped him at that time when he was in his battle. So thank you to everybody, much gracias. Viva Mexico, Ivea, and the Prensia. Wow! Wow, that was amazing. I would like to just thank everyone, First and foremost, Mr. Joe, and I have a little thank you so much. Flakian Torres, Richard I Ibrahim, that was absolutely amazing. The entire Latin New Heritage Celebration here, steering committee for bringing us together and helping us and bringing the community together. And of course, Mayor London Reed, who will be with us on Sunday evening, on Sunday evening. And to commemorate our Gritio City Hall will be lit in the wonderful colors of the Mexican flag, in red, white, and green. Thank you so much all for being here. Viva Mexico, Viva San Francisco, Vavo celebrar, gracias. And also all the sponsors for El Grito, including Comcast. Thank you. Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm San Francisco Linden Breed and I'm here with Dr. Maria Sue, the director of the department of children, youth and families to talk about the challenges that the school district faces after their emergency meeting yesterday and what the schools are doing with the City and County of San Francisco and our school stabilization team. I just want to start by saying that there are some incredible public servants, people who work for the school district, teachers, educators, and folks who day in and day out, they show up for our kids. And I want to appreciate their hard work and I know this has been a very challenging time. I want to appreciate the school board members and the work that they are trying to do to get us on the right path as we go through this very difficult time. And I want to also appreciate the patience and understanding from many of the parents who have wanted concrete information, and it's been challenging communication overall. But this really isn't about blame. This is about providing solutions, getting to, yes, getting to a point where we are making the right decisions that are going to help our children. And to also be very clear, many people know the mayor is not directly responsible for the school district. The mayor cannot demand anything of the school district. However, we will be working as a partner with the school district. This is not a city takeover, this is a partnership, one in which the school district has embraced because they need help in order to get through this very challenging time. And to also be very clear, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for our public schools. I grew up in this city and I went to Galileo High School, Benjamin Franklin Middle School, Raphael Will Elementary School, which is now Rosa Parks. And that has shaped me into the person I am today and so many others, so many people are successful in life because of our public schools. So I want to be very, very clear as to how important this is and why we have no other choice but to rally our resources and to invest everything we have into making our schools a success. And I want to make it very clear to the parents, to the educators, to the students out there, we will not fail. We will work together and we will get the job done. And we will put our schools on track for long-term sustainability, because the future of our young people depends on it. And the good news is that we are all working together. And I'd like to thank the president of the school board, Matt Alexander, and the members of the school board for their openness to work with us and to partner on this new stabilization team. This is an incredible step in the right direction. And to be very clear, I've also talked to the superintendent of schools for the state of California, Tony Dermann, who has offered support and clarity and his team is working directly with us. We have right now three immediate goals because ultimately, we want to avoid a takeover from the state. We want to make sure that we build the capacity. We provide the infrastructure. We provide the changes to our policies in order to ensure long-term stability. But on a more immediate note, the school district is facing some serious financial challenges. And our plan is to go in and to make sure that by the end of this year, that we help them with a balanced budget, that we help them make the right decisions based on facts, based on data, based on real numbers. And I want to appreciate our former controller for the City and County of San Francisco, Ben Rosenfield, who has been helping with the school district and their finances and making sure that we have the most current and accurate information so that we are making decisions from a place of facts. That is where we have to start. And by the end of this year, the school district has to provide a clear plan and balance budget to the state. And that is what we will focus on. The other thing that we need to focus on is the fact that we're dealing with some challenges with our various schools, whether it's class sizes, whether it's our lack of resources for our special education program. We are going to also be working to ensure that we address what those challenges are based on the schools that are experiencing the challenges with staffing, insuredages, and other things in order to ensure that as we go through this process, our students are getting the support that they need. Ultimately, our priority in all of this are our kids and their future. The last thing that we will be addressing more immediately is what is on everybody's mind and that is our school closures and what will happen. The fact is we didn't have everything we needed in order to provide that information to our parents and to the public. And so one of the other things we will be doing is making sure that we know what is happening in each of every school, what the capacities of those schools are, looking at this from an equitable lens all around the city so we're not just closing schools in the southeast sector and one neighborhood or another and focusing on making sure that we try to keep families and parents and other folks together. That plan has more work to be done and we will be working hand in hand to make sure that we not only look at the facts, but more importantly, that we develop the right communication strategy. So when we are talking to the school communities, that we're talking to them to help them understand what we might do or might not do, and how we're going to get to yes and to make this transition as smooth as possible and as clear as possible. So we have a lot of work before us, but I want to just take a moment to step back. We were in a situation a couple of years ago as many many of you recall, with Laguna Honda Hospital. And many people thought during the pandemic that we would experience, you know, arise in the loss of life during that pandemic and we saved lives. And more importantly, we saved lives at Laguna Honda. But we faced a possible closure. And what we did is we rallied the truth. We brought in some of the best of the best to get into the weeds of making the kinds of changes that the state and the feds wanted to see. And we ultimately saved Laguna Honda for the people who rely on it the most. And that is what we will do with our schools. We have a track record. When we are faced with crisis, we have a track record of delivering the kinds of results necessary in order to secure our facilities and we will secure our schools for our kids. And leading that team are those who are very much familiar with coming to the leadership roles that they have to help us address these kinds of issues. Maria Sue, the Department of Children, Youth and Families, Phil Ginsburg, who is a part of the Reckon Park Department, the director, and a number of our other departments and their staff, some of their best staff, will be available to help in this particular instance, and to be very clear when our schools were closed, when our kids had no place to learn, Maria Sue and Phil Ginsburg and their teams set up our learning hubs. We built schools from scratch when our kids had no place to go. And this is why it is important that they are a part of this process because they know what it takes. But we also have outside expertise. This team will be supported by special advisor Dr. Carl Cohn and he's professor emeritus and senior research fellow in the school of education, study educational studies at Claremont Graduate University. He's worked for other school districts. He's provided that kind of support in the past and he will be an important part of our school stabilization team. So I want to be very clear. We are ready to go. And we will bring that clarity to the public and to the parents and to the educators and to the students. This is what I believe is the hope that we need to ensure that when you are entrusting your children to our San Francisco Unified School District, that we can ensure their success and their future. And we have the pieces of that puzzle that are all together, everyone is rolling up their sleeves, providing their valuable expertise so that we could build capacity for our school district so that we can focus on the short term goals that we have, and ultimately the long term impact that our school district will have on students for generations to come. And we appreciate, again, your understanding and your patients. And we will do everything we can to ensure that all of this works together for the good of our kids. Thank you all so much. And with that, I want to turn it over to Dr. Maria Sue from the Department of Children, Youth and Families. Thank you, Mayor. Good morning, everyone. My name is Maria Sue. I'm the Director for the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families. I am grateful that the Mayor has asked me to co-lead with my colleague, Phil Ginsburg, General Manager of the Department of Reckham Parks, this school stabilization team. We are walking into a very critical situation at the school district, and we want to bring our experts in the city to provide support to our school district. As the mayor shared, there are many, many hard working staff at the school district, and we just want to provide additional supports. Things like our fiscal expertise, our human resources expertise, our operations and policy expertise, managing multiple facilities expertise, so things that will continue to support the school district to thrive and to meet the mandates that the state has placed on them. Our goals and our intentions are very clear. We sent a letter to our school district superintendent as well as to the Board of Education this morning outlining our our steps moving forward. Thank you. All right. What if there are benchmarks? I don't know if there's going to be benchmarks, but there's a time table. What are you looking at in terms of measurements to see if the committee you assembled is working as a result you want? So here's the thing, Christian. We just are going in there now. So we don't necessarily know what that will entail, but we should be able to provide that sort of information later. Ultimately, we have three goals that we have to meet, and the timelines are set for us already. Specifically, we have to close the budget deficit of the school district by the end of this year. We don't have any time to set benchmarks. We have to do it. We have no wiggle room. So that is, you know, our number one goal, number one of the three goals that we have. And the other one is to address some of the challenges at some of our schools where we may not have teachers for special education or oversized classrooms and things of that nature. We have to dig into what is happening right now and make some adjustments as we speak. And long term, we have to get clarity around the data and the facts before we could even talk about what schools might be proposed to be closed. And so that's a longer conversation because we need the information. Before we can provide that information, we need it. And then secondly, a part of the communication strategy would be when we are able to provide information to the public, especially to the parents, students, and the educators, we're going to do so. We won't wait until the end of December to communicate, but our goal is to try and be very consistent about benchmarks as we meet them in order to just give people an understanding that things are moving and working and going in the right direction. So we will have more of that after the letter is responded to, and our hope is that we'll start to see some real change. So three quick questions. That may sound like that the October release of schools that are probably going to be closed, but that is now on hold. Let me answer that. I can't tell you that it's on hold. I can just tell you that our school stabilization team, once they go in and they start working with the district, they'll be able to find more clarity and let the school district know when they believe that particular announcement could potentially be made. But we just don't know at this time. Okay. Other two questions are, it could potentially be made. But we just don't know at this time. Two questions. I have spoken with the superintendent. And what was the tipping point for you to get involved obviously in the subcommittee? Yeah, I'm gonna not engage in that particular components. Because again, I don't want to get into the blame and the conversations and things that have had to happen to lead us to this point because I really want to focus on the solutions. We are at a point where we need to focus all of our time attention and resources on focusing on our kids and getting to the right place so I don't want to rehash the developments that led up to this point. I just want to focus on what we need to do to move forward. I'm not sure if I want to get into that right now if you don't mind. So in moving forward and it is unusual to take on this role as you describe who has kind of in charge and will ultimately be the one to make decisions on what happens next? Will it be you? Will it be the superintendent? So to be very clear, the superintendent is still in charge. And the superintendent and the school board has accepted help from my office. And to be very clear, my office and I have talked to a number of people, including the superintendent, and with the goal of getting to a place where our help is accepted and more importantly used in a way that's gonna help meet some of the needs that we need to meet. And so we believe that that will be the case. Do you still have faith in or confidence in the superintendents after yesterday's emergency meeting and what is your message to parents or what you just fed up at this point with the delays and the new updates that keep coming in the pushes with reverse to the announcement of the school pressure? Well, I have heard from a lot of parents who are very excited about the city getting involved because there was too many questions, too much uncertainty. And I think the biggest challenge that the school district had was communication. And so I think with our team here and the people that we have that are available, they are opening the doors. And so we will be sending in that stabilization team. And they will be taking a lot of guidance from our stabilization team and we will be making a number of recommendations that we expect them to implement. So I would say to many of those parents that you know we need just a little bit more patience but the good news is that we have some of the best of the best. People who have proven track records of doing successful work whether it's our controllers office, our human services department, my own policy team as well as two incredible leaders of my departments of Reckon Park and Department of Children, youth and families who have built from scratch, hubs to help with our children. So I think that there's a reason why we are going in and I wanna just reiterate, I don't wanna cast blame because we need to focus on solutions and they're also a lot of hard, dedicated people who work for the school district and we want to support them. We want to encourage them. We want to motivate them and we want them to know that we're here to help. We're not here to point the finger. We are here to help but we're not here to point the finger. Unfortunately, I can't give you that information at this time. But as soon as we go in and we get the facts and we get the clarity around what that entails, then we'll be able to, well, if when there is an announcement, I don't know when that might be, but we'll be able to provide clarity. And first, we need to make sure that we're talking to those families who are most impacted before we do anything and we have to have the facts behind that we don't have that information so we can't provide that information at this time. Is there ever a mechanism? We're talking about millions of dollars potentially here if there's not a bridge in that budget is there a mechanism that the city may have to help in bridging some of that gap? We're talking about every option. So we don't know what the city is going to have to do in terms of bridging a gap, but that's always one time. So we have to be very careful. The city already provides almost about 10% of the school district's budget thanks to the generous support of the voters. We've also gone above and beyond that with some additional resources that we pay for for the school district. So look, we're going to do whatever it takes and what we can do to make sure that it's sustainable because a one time whole plug is not going to be something that's long-term stability. There are some things, as I said, we have to do more immediately, and then there's the long-term plans that we have in order to get it to that place. And I go back to Laguna Honda. It took us a little while to get to that place. It took us, you know, more than, you know, maybe almost two years. But the goal is to move in that direction, rather than the direction we saw the district moving in more recently. This gives me hope. It gives me hope because we have people at the table that are capable of helping to ensure a successful future. Quick follow up on that. I mean, the part of the problem that we're seeing not just in San Francisco and in the Bay Area in general is that there are fewer and fewer children who are actually in public schools. I mean, that does create some structural issues. Is this the problem that's going to be in perpetuity? Well, it might be, but again, we don't know until we get into the weeds of everything that's going on. We can do some data analysis and predict what might be, but ultimately we have to make our schools more attractive by making them more stable and predictable. And that is our goal, that's what we plan to do. And the good news is that this is one of the first times as the school district is actually sincerely interested in accepting the kind of quality help that only the city can bring. Will we look for updates from you or from you or from the school board? Where will we get these updates from? So just to be very clear, this stabilization team will have someone who's gonna be able to provide direct communication. We're still working on the details because ultimately we want to make sure that we're not waiting until I'm available, but we're providing the information as soon as we have it available in order to keep it out there and to give people some assurances that something is moving and something is working. What's the difference between people we'll get some data? I don't know at this time, but as I said, this is only the beginning. And we are going in, the letters have been sent, the conversations are being had, the meetings are taking place today, and the goal is full speed ahead. And as soon as we have something, this is almost like going back to COVID. Remember, when we didn't have all the information, all the data, and what I've tried to do throughout that time is keep you posted with the facts, because that's been the biggest problem is information that is not clear, and then so many questions surrounding that information. We wanna give you whatever we have as soon as we have it, and we will give you the facts when we do. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. I'm San Francisco Mayor London breed and I am here with our public safety leaders in San Francisco, including our police chief Bill Scott, our district attorney Brooke Jenkins, our sheriff Paul Miyamoto, and one of our most fiercest advocates on the board of supervisors for public safety, supervisor Matt Dorisie. We are also being joined by LVT's Chief Revenue Officer Mark Cranie, who will be giving a demo about why we're here today in the first place. I want to start by expressing my appreciation to San Francisco voters because technology has been a game changer and through Proposition E it has given our police department the tools that they need to not only stop crime as they occur but to prevent it in the first place. This is what I know people in this city want to see. And more importantly, the information that we put into Prop E before we put it on the ballot came directly from the police officers themselves. When I had an opportunity to go visit the various stations, get an understanding of what they wanted to see and how they wanted to do their jobs more efficiently. Time and time again, they were proud to be a part of the San Francisco Police Department but lack the tools necessary, the 21st century technology necessary to be as effective. It is no wonder, as a result of preliminarily using technology like license plate readers and drones and other things we've seen within July and June of the past two months and over 70 percent decline in car break-ins and that has a lot to do with technology and San Francisco fortunately is seeing a record low in terms of crime. The lowest crime rate we've experienced in 10 years. But we also know that when things happen, numbers don't matter. So we will continue to do everything we can to combat the issues related to crime, which is why we're not letting up. We are starting to see pre-pandemic level applications in our police staffing. And we're excited about what that means, because right now with our class of 40 and 1 with 50 that is coming, the classes are finally starting to fill up and we anticipate within the next two and a half years that our department will be fully staffed. But we are also making sure that in light of the challenges that exist, we are still doing our jobs and still getting the kinds of results that are making a significant difference in San Francisco. And today is a really exciting time because more importantly, as I said, we have our law enforcement leadership and we work hand in hand together and isn't it nice after so many years of disconnect to have us all on the same page pushing for the same kinds of results, public safety for the entire city, for every resident and every corner of our city. So it's not just one thing or another. It is all of it and we are doing it every single day and today is an example of us moving forward with a new tool that will transform how we address issues around the most important things related to the challenges that exist with public safety, including some of the issues we're dealing with with open air, drug dealing, side shows, you name it, this new technology will also lends itself to making things a lot better. And we're looking forward to learning more about it, seeing a demonstration, and just know that this is one of many tools that we are using to help combat the challenges around safety in our city, and we are excited, and we can't wait. Finally, before I introduce Chief Scott, I think that what you are saying with a number of situations that have occurred recently in San Francisco, they've gotten a lot of attention, but I want to make it very clear that whether it was a shooting, whether it was retail theft or other issues, car break ins, our officers were there to make the arrest. And in some cases, they were proactive, which is what has led to removing people who are committing crimes in our city off the streets. Time and time again, it sends a clear message to people all over the Bay Area and the country that San Francisco has accountability, and we will not tolerate under any circumstances, lawlessness, and we will be there to hold you accountable. We are all working together using every tool our disposal to make sure that we address public safety in our city for the better. And with that, let me introduce our police chief, Bill Scott. Here. Thank you, Mayor Breed, and good morning everybody. Let me say thank you to Mayor Breed for her leadership. These tools have been a game changer. And I'm gonna start with the bottom line and just piggyback on some of what Mayor Breed has said. You know our crime reduction year-to-date has been phenomenal. We're 32 percent below where we were this time last year. Our car break ends are down 56 percent. Our burgers are down, our robberies are down, our homicide rate is at one of the lowest levels that anybody can remember. So things are moving in the right direction. We have a little bit of synergy, I will call it. And a lot of that is because of the partnerships. We have our DA, Brooke Jenkins here. You'll hear from her in a second. You'll hear from our sheriff Paul Miyamoto. But we are working together. As Mayor Breed said, we are working together. And these tools are only going to enhance that. So I want to talk a little bit about these security cameras and what they mean to us. As you all know, we've already implemented the use of drone technology. We've already implemented the use of our ALPR cameras through the flat camera system. And we have made arrests on some really bad and dangerous people in a fashion that we would not have been able to do it in prior to this technology being implemented. This is yet another piece of technology, another tool for our officers that we can use in the spirit of having our officers identify crime when it happens, sometimes before it happens, so we can go out and be proactive. But do it with our values. Do it with the values of this city. We want to be surgical in terms of who we focus our attention on we don't need to waste time and this technology Will allow us to do that the other thing about this LVD LBT technology It's very flexible as you can see these are mobile camera units they have Sound devices on them, where we can make announcements. We can give warnings. They can move from one hotspot to the other when we need them. And we can be more responsive to our community who are calling for safety across our city. Again, this is huge for us. And Prop E was thanks to the voters and thanks to the leadership of the mayor and others in our city has really allowed us to do this at a speed in which we have not been able to do this before. But doing it with speed doesn't mean we're going to be not thoughtful. It doesn't mean we're going to ignore the community concerns and ignore privacy concerns and those things. We're being very, very thoughtful in how we implement these policies. Adhering to state laws, adhering to our local values, our local policies, and listening to communities. Our public safety cameras, before we introduce public safety cameras, which are not these, to any community, We have community meetings so the community can get feedback. So we want to invite anybody that has thoughts and ideas. Please get in touch with us. We want to do this right and we want to make this right. But let me go back to our bottom line. Our bottom line is a safe city, a city where we have less people victimize a city where we don't fear crime in the city. And that's what we're trying to get to a note to people who commit crime the day is over that day is over where you get to come here or if you live here get to just roam the streets and victimize our our community now we still have crime make no mistake about it but we want to keep driving that crime down. And that is what we intend to do with the use of these cameras, and this is a tremendous, tremendous boost to the morale of our officers and to our ability to get things right in terms of driving crime down. Now these first units, let me say this because I know this questions will be asked probably Bob's jump in front of it. We plan to after getting a lot of community feedback in the mission district, where there is open air drug dealing, there's concerns about human trafficking. One of these first units will be deployed in the mission district, and then another one will be deployed in the mid-market area around the UN Plaza area, where we've been really relentless in addressing open air drug use and drug sales. So this will aid in that as well. And what we intend to do with this footage when we catch people is give it to our DA. So she can do her thing and prosecute people that are committing crimes in this city. So with that, I'd like to turn the microphone over to our district attorney, a great partner in district attorney Brooke Jenkins. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. And I want to thank the mayor as well as all of our law enforcement partners for really spearheading Prop E across the finish line to make sure that voters understood why these issues are significant, why the police department and other law enforcement agencies need to be able to use this technology and for making sure that with that understanding They voted to pass that piece of legislation We are in the the tech capital of the world here in Silicon Valley and we have to make sure that we are not behind the curve in Using technology to our full advantage We know that yes, we've been combating a police department that is short staffed. And what that means on the ground is that we have fewer humans who are able to observe what's going on and respond to what's going on. And so we have to be able to use resources like technology to substitute for the lack of that human involvement. And this is one of the keys to being able to do that. But even if we were fully staffed, as a prosecutor, I want to be able to walk into the courtroom knowing that I can prove my case. And being able to have technology that captures an incident, that captures an assault, that captures an auto burglary, so that I can demonstrate to the jury what exactly happened, the description of who did it, so that they can see that we are prosecuting one the right person and that we are prosecuting them for the appropriate crimes is essential. And that's what technology provides my office, is the ability to more effectively prosecute our cases. And that's why I have stood in support of this legislation because what it means is that not only if you come to San Francisco and you commit crime will you be caught because that is of course first first and foremost most important but we have to make sure that people fear a consequence on the back end and the only way to ensure that fear is to make sure that we have provable cases in the district attorney's office and so yes I want to highlight something the mayor said, which is that only a few years ago you may have seen a district attorney standing against this type of initiative and this type of these types of tools. But now you see a full partnership between City Hall, between law enforcement agencies and my office to stand firm that San Franciscans and everybody who comes here for whatever purpose, whether to work or to visit deserve safety. They deserve to park their cars and not be concerned of whether or not the window will be broken or their car will be gone. They should not have to be concerned about attacks, assaults, and other things. We have to provide what people deserve, which is fundamental safety. And that's what we are working hard to do each and every day. And we have seen the progress as you heard, but our foot is on the gas to make sure that those numbers continue to drop. That we go from just highlighting data to a point where people in this city say they feel safe again because that is our true goal. And so again, I thank everybody who standing up here who has been a tremendous partner in this effort. I will continue to stand with them as we push forward in this work. And now I would like to turn it over to our sheriff, Paul Miyamoto. Thank you. Thank you very happy to be here today, standing alongside as people have mentioned our partnerships here in public safety not just with us entrusted to make sure everybody is safe but also the mayor and elected who make sure that we have the support to do so and I just want to say that this is going to just equip us to make sure that people in the city don't fear crime, but that people fear committing crimes in the city. They're going to help us support our deputies, our officers with much needed presence in key areas, as have been mentioned by the police chief, and also a note, the Sheriff's Office has been using technology for years in terms of making sure our job is enhanced by keeping places safe in the jails and the courts in the hospitals all of those public spaces where we have cameras that has been a force multiplier for us and we are very happy to see this occur now in public spaces to help the police department with this to continue to occur. The surveillance footage the footage that we will acquire is also helpful because for follow-up investigations, for us to be able to see what not just what is about to happen, but what has happened, cuts down on the time it takes to get other surveillance footage as well. And this is going to help us in terms of our staffing levels and putting people out there, putting vision out there when we don't have people out there. I would like to also acknowledge the support of the entire community, not just the business community, but the community itself, which are helping us to embrace these, which are voting on the technologies that we need to make sure that these tools are utilized. We're very excited to partner with the police department to continue to keep people safe. We're very excited that these units are going to help us enhance our capabilities out there. And we're very excited that we're still on the right trajectory. This trajectory to make sure that everyone in San Francisco is safe. And without further ado, let me introduce one of the people who have helped us to get to this point, Supervisor Matt Dorsey. Thank you so much, Sheriff Miyamoto. to get to this point, supervisor Matt Dorsey. Thank you so much, Sheriff Miyamoto. And welcome everybody to District six. I wanna express my gratitude to Mayor Breed for proposing Proposition E and then also as some other people have mentioned, expressing my gratitude to San Francisco voters for passing it that made our use of surveillance technology possible and actually puts us on a level playing field with outside counties that don't have the kinds of restrictive rules that San Francisco has had in recent years. This enables us to use some tools that are going to make our communities safer. Now proposition E passed by a large margin citywide, but I will tell you, among supervisor districts, my district passed by one of the largest margins, was well over 60% of voters supported it, and this is the district behind me. It's downtown, what district six residents know, is the kinds of issues that this technology will help us solve. Are the things that are undermining our attractiveness to commuters and to conventions and to tourists? When people talk about safety in District 6, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're personally unsafe. It's a recognition that this is something that is robbing our communities of the safe enjoyment of their neighborhoods. It's undermining our economic comeback. And worst of all, especially when it comes to drug markets and open-air drug scenes, it's driving a public health calamity that is unprecedented in our history since the AIDS crisis. We need to do more with technology, and I'm incredibly grateful to the leadership of Mayor Breed and as District Attorney Jenkins said, the leadership of everybody behind me, I have been in city government for a long time and I can't think of a time. When we have had federal, state, local partners all rowing in the same direction on public safety challenges, the good news, and I have said this for years, you know, most major cities in America would trade their violent crime problems for our drug crimes problems in a heartbeat. We're not a violent city and our statistics are good but we do have some issues that we need to address. We're on the comeback. I appreciate Mayor Breeds leadership for leading that comeback. We've got more to further progress to make and this technology is going to help us get there. So thank you so much and with that I'd like to welcome LVT Chief Revenue Officer Mark Cranny to give a demo for these devices. Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey. So LVT is very proud and excited to partner with the city and county of San Francisco to support your drug and crime reduction initiatives and to help increase life safety as well as property protection. I'm confident that the live view technology's platform will be able to assist San Francisco PD as well as County in being able to deter, detect and defend against crime. In high crime areas as well as in situations such as open air drug markets and the car, the smashing grab use case that the mayor also discussed. LVT offers a unique force multiplier for law enforcement as well as for our enterprise customers. You may have noticed these types of units around the Bay area, particularly in Big Box retail locations, shopping malls, as well as multi-family housing type areas that are customers on the private side have been using for years. We have over 15,000 of these deployed throughout the nation. Forward deployed, we run them as a fleet, we take care of all the maintenance and upkeep and moving of these units. And we are extremely excited to be another arrow in the quiver for the city and county of San Francisco to reduce crime going forward with their initiatives. So Mayor Breedner team will be using our flagship product. As you can see, it's rapidly deployable, mobile security unit or what we call an MSU. It runs on solar. It's cellular connected with our own private network so you can bounce around to get the best coverage. Use the combination of security cameras, lights, speakers, and AI to eliminate blind spots, protect property, and deter unwanted behavior. Like to turn your attention to the units, as we do a quick demonstration, a common use case is deterring smashing grabs. In vision, bad actors walking in and out or weaving in a parking lot or on the side of a road looking into windows of cars before they do a smashing grab. Our AI can detect this unwanted human behavior and initiate what we call a tier one response. This area is being monitored for the safety and security of the citizens of San Francisco. Now if that doesn't scare away the bad actors or at least give them pause, we can trigger a tier two alert. You are voidering. The authorities have been notified. Please leave immediately. Ideally, the bad actor runs away. What we typically find is with these deterrent capabilities lights, audio, talk downs that are automated with AI, that we can, we see a 50 to 75% reduction in incidents, but we always have to keep at, we always have to keep at that 20, 30% of more determined people. So we also have the ability to access the cameras in real time and do a remote live talk down. And you can also retrieve evidence of a crime or incident that's been committed during or after it's taken place. Another example that the mayor as well as the chief and the sheriff have described is open air drug markets, envision a crowd of people loitering in an area after hours. Our AI can detect this behavior and trigger a tier one response. This area is being monitored for the safety and security of the citizens of San Francisco. In the situation where the crowd does not disperse and or more individuals approach and or our technology can also pick up certain things like drug transactions are taking place our LVT can do another escalation at that time. You are trespassing. Please leave the area. This area is under video surveillance and you have been recorded. So ideally this will deter the dealers in their, ideally make them leave, but before a crime is captured, the minimum will capture the crime on camera and authorities now have evidence to build a case for an arrest and or prosecution. So these two scenarios should provide a high level of what the technology of ET's technology can bring to the table as a force multiplier for the city of San Francisco and another arrow in the quiver for law enforcement. And what at this point I'd like to, and you know, A, think the mayor, and then entire team here in San Francisco where he's decided to partner and point your attention over to the tent. If you'd like to get a deeper dive demonstration of our video management system and see some of the pre-set views of the wonderful city as well as the parking lot and Rob over there, our solution architect can walk you through some other use cases and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mayor and everyone else. Appreciate it. So, ideally, you this technology we coordinate, just like we have mentioned before to you all, the flock camera technology is in coordination with our drones, in coordination with this. For instance, let's say this camera captures a license plate of a car that just committed a crime. You name the crime. Officers can put that in the system as a wanted vehicle. It goes out through the ALPR system, and then that vehicle is detected. If it's picked up on a camera, not only in San Francisco, but any Bay Area city that has this technology. So we have been able, as I said earlier, we've been able to find one at people and one at cars just by doing that. This enhances that. Well, the view of this technology is this mobile. Yeah, in the mission district, within a couple of weeks, probably sooner. We have the technology now. And here's the ideal scenario for us. If we can resolve some of the issues that the communities have been complaining about for decades, those cameras can be relocated to other places that have challenges. So I mean this is to have this type of flexibility is really a wonderful thing for our city. We have three. We have three. So yeah. And the third one to be determined. That's nobody have two. The third one's right behind you. Right behind you. Right behind you. Yeah, but we will deploy that third one too. We're just trying to determine where. But it'll be deployed and we'll make that announcement when it's, when that decision has been made. Thank you. Well, I can have Mark talk about what he's seeing in other cities, but you know, we did research other cities and I didn't introduce him, but Director Ryan Cow behind us is one of the, he actually is the pop project lead and behind you, Lieutenant Chris Wilhelm, who's standing right here behind you, and of course assistant chief Dave Lazarus, so we have done our research and if Mark if you want to talk about what you see in another city I think that'll be more appropriate Santa Clara County probably the biggest where you may have seen them if it's on the in the public sector side Santa Clara Valley or Santa Clara County public works is using of particularly for the bar three extension type areas. So other California counties L.A. County is a a big user in conjunction also with public works as well as transportation. So a couple examples, Sacramento, big users across the Bay. We have a lot of units as well. It depends on how you configure it, but we sell them as a service. So think of like a guard service or a fully loaded officer is going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are more in the $30,000, $40,000 a year range and a forced multiplier before even factor in the return of reduction, crime reduction as well. So I want to add something just for clarity around technology. Because this is not the end of what we will use as a city in order to address issues around public safety, we have the ability to use whatever technologies are available at our disposal as a way to help deter crime. So these units are mobile, but we also, and to give you a perspective, we have the ability and we'll be installing 400 license plate readers. We've installed, I believe, the latest count was somewhere around 130, 180, 180. And even at the point of where we had 100 license plate readers up, we were able to, for example, make an arrest for someone who had committed a crime in San Jose. We were able to make arrest and recover stolen vehicles. We were able to address issues around car breakings and other issues. And here's the thing. We also have the ability to put up stationary cameras that provide surveillance in particular areas. And we are working with communities to look at those as an option too. So I want to be very clear that this is a big part of all of what we are using to maximize our use of whatever technology is available to help us combat the most pressing issues in our city. And it should be noted that, you know, the chief talked about car break ins overall year-to-date 50 percent lower than they were last year, but after we had started to use the drone technology and we released footage for what that would entail, we saw a 70% reduction in June of car break-ins in comparison to last year and we saw a 70% over 70% reduction in July in comparison to last year. So we are seeing the change because all of this technology combined is making the difference. And so we're really excited about adding another important tool to addressing issues in the mission related to some of the most challenging issues in particular prostitution and what's happening in that community, the open air drug dealing and how these cameras are going to be front and center in those hotspots and how we will follow people where they go when they decide to move to another location. We will have you on camera. We will send letters to your homes, letting your family members know that your car was located in an area a hotspot known for prostitution. We are not backing down from the use of technology in any shape or form in order to address issues around public safety while simultaneously negotiating the best contract that our police department has seen, which is why people are deciding to leave other law enforcement agencies around the Bay Area to come to San Francisco and this technology adds to an interest in wanting to serve in law enforcement in San Francisco. It's a combination of all those things and we are really excited and at this time let's show you a demonstration of what that looks like. Good morning everybody, isn't this exciting? I'm really just here to thank a bunch of people, so I'm going to do a lot of thanking, and I'm going to begin by thanking the GLBT Historical Society for hosting us today. And I don't know if the folks from Hot Cookie are still here, but you may have noticed there's some amazing Hot Cookie treats out front. Okay, we have, we got a lot of dignitaries here. I'm not going to get it right. I'm going to do my best. We have, well, we have our state senator Scott Weiner, who's going to be addressing us. We have our mayor, London Reed, who is going to be addressing us. We have our mayor, London Reed, who is going to be addressing us. We have our longest serving gay elected official, Hosea Sneros. We have our board president, Aaron Peskin. We have my extremely gay colleague, Matt Dorsey, from District 6. We have a couple of my extremely gay predecessors. I introduced one of them, but we have Bevin Duffty. Applause. Currently on the board, formerly district eight supervisor, and before that, actually played a key role in making this flag happen. And we have my immediate predecessor, Jeff Sheehy, somewhere here. Applause. We have so many. We've got gay school board commissioner recently appointed Phil Kim. Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Lesbian police commissioner, Deborah Walker. Woo! Woo! Woo! Uh, DOS advisory council member, Deborah Walker. Doss advisory council member Amaya pointy morning star van so thank you for being here. Gay Gay Gay Transportation director Jeff Tumlin. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. the Empress Linda Summers is here somewhere waving back there. And the Empress Manny Yacoodiel of Civic Joy Fund. Thank you for being here. There is a fricking ton of queer executive director talent in this room. Roberto Ordenyana from the Historical Society. Suzanne Ford from SF Pride. Brian Springfield from the AIDS Legal Referral Panel. Billy Lemon from the Castro Country Club. Patrick Carney from the Pink triangle. I mean it is as the mayor just said a who's who I've left people off. Andrea Iello, executive director of the committee benefit district. Terry Aston, Bennett, president of the Castro merchants. Adam, can I stop? Is that good? All right, tell me the people I left off when you think of them. It is so amazing to be here today. It's been quite a journey literally years in the making. It was Jeff Sheehy, who started us down this path back in 2017. Thank you, Jeff Sheehy who started us down this path back in 2017. Thank you, Jeff Sheehy. And Jeff has been dogged and persistent in ensuring that we do this right. And so thank you, Jeff, for that. As everyone in this room well knows Gilbert Baker's rainbow flag installation at Harvey Milk Plaza is political artwork, an act of defiance, an international symbol of gay liberation. It's a physical representation of pride for both residents of San Francisco and visitors from around the world. Gilbert created the first rainbow pride flag at the request of his friend Harvey Milk in time for the 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade in San Francisco. On November 8th, 1997, 20 years following milk selection of the Board of Supervisors, Gilbert Baker's rainbow flag was raised over Harvey Milk Plaza to commemorate that anniversary. At the board committee hearing on this, Jeff Sheehy told the story of Willie Brown's involvement in that and how at a Castro street fair, Gilbert went up to Willie, the great builder of San Francisco, Mission Bay City Hall, the Embarcadero, he's not here to hear all of this. And and and pitch Tim on adding to his vision of civic art or massive civic art around the city, a giant rainbow flag at Harvey Milk Plaza. And Willie had some gaze around him, including his director of the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, Bevin Duffty. And the first and I guess only gay public works director, Mark Primo, and Dean Goodwin, who some of you may know, who I think is recently retired from the city, former Alice Co. Chair, longtime activist, and those gays and that mayor and Gilbert and others made it happen. After having, yes, that's applause, I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah. And after having flown from more than a quarter century today, Gilbert's flag will be a city landmark. Thank you President Peskin. Thank you Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you all of my colleagues on the board of Supervisors and thank you Madam Mayor for doing what you're about to do which is to sign it. I want to acknowledge and address Supervisor Sheehy the hardy band of committed never give up advocates who've championed this land marking for years. Of course led by Charlie Beale and the Gilbert Baker Foundation. Terry Aston, Bennett of the Castro Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency Emergency As I said, when you start naming people you get in trouble because you don't name everybody and I'm sure I'm leaving people out. But I'd also want to ignore the rest of you. I want to acknowledge the Castro Cultural District represented here by Ernesto. Thank you for being here, Ernesto, and thanks the culture district for their support. And of course, politicians only get to do stuff like this because city staff make it happen. And so Moses, Moses correct and rich sucre from planning. I don't think we have our city attorneys here, but Andrea Riesisquite and Peter Million, it should be happened to sneak in, thank you. And Adam Tomsovat, in my office, Adam Tomsovat. And Victor Ruiz-Korného, Victor for organizing, and the whole, and the mayor's team, for your work, on organizing this. And then a bittersweet note and a giant thank you to two giants who are gone and in the sky. But thank you, Gary Virginia, for bringing this picture of Tom Taylor. But Tom Taylor and Jerry Goldstein who did so much for this community and took such good care of that flag and ensured that every June there would be rainbow flags up and down Market Street. So a little gay kid like Rafael Mandelman coming back from college could like see that, oh my god, this is a beer. I hadn't figured it out before. This is a pretty gay city. So thank you to them. And I think those are all my thank yous and that is my only purpose here today is to thank people and also introduce. So now I'm going to introduce a great partner on this project, the board chair of the Gilbert Baker Foundation, Charlie Beale. Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Woo! Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman, Mayor Breed, and the entire Board of Supervisors, all you elected officials. I'd like to thank some early supporters like Jeff Sheehy, Shane Watson, Moses, people like Cleve Jones, Ken Jones, May he rest in peace, Deborah Walker, Monica Helms, David Christensen, Danny Nakaletta, and Andrea Ayello. I'd love to thank Terry Eston Bennett for everybody at the Castaster Merchants Association for their stalwart support of this. And I would like to make a special, special thank you to Tom Taylor. You know, he... I think Tom's niece Angela Trigger, is she here? Angela? She's way in the back. Thank you, Angela, so much for coming. I'm representing. I'm so happy you made it. I received an email this week from a gentleman named Travis Culver, who lives in Bezwick, Pennsylvania. His school district just voted to ban the rainbow flag. The 54th such ban, since we have been tracking these horrible laws, he reached out to thank me for giving him legal guidance and strategies to help the good citizens of Burwick to fight back. And he said, Charlie, thank you for protecting our kids and teachers. This symbol that you, San Francisco, have chosen to protect means so much to so many people around this world. At the foundation that bears Gilbert's name, we are grateful, humbled, and heartened to know that this gift that Gilbert gained to the world would be flying every day and every night for every year, year after year. It means the world to people like Travis Culver, and the teachers and students in Burwerk, Pennsylvania. Because even though the narrow-minded bigots there are telling them that they can't fly this flag, the people of San Francisco here are telling them, yes, you can. Thank you, Charlie. Now people who know me know that as soon as anyone else begins to tear up, I'm going to fall apart. So we can't let that happen. But thank you again, thank you for those words. I would like to next bring up our city's chief gay, who was my predecessor in the district date seat, but has also gone on to Sacramento to fight for queer people in this state. And in so doing has earned the just hatred, frankly, of so many people who inundate him with hate mail and threats, and yet he continues to fight on for the queer community. So we love you, Scott Weiner for that. And please come up and say a few words. Thank you, Supervisor Mandelman. Thank you for doing this and for seeing it through and for all the amazing work that you do in this great supervisor. See, I, something that's when I walk down the street and people will say, hi, Supervisor, and then someone will be like, no, you have to tell them you're a senator now. I'm like, no, no, no. Once you are a Supervisor, you are always a supervisor and particularly in this community being in this lineage starting with Harvey Milk going through today, Supervisor Mandelman, this is just, this is an amazing role and Rafael you're doing an amazing job. So thank you. And Charlie, thank you for stewarding Gilbert's legacy and the flag and it's incredibly important work and whoever thought that this flag would become so controversial because of these bigots around the country. So thank you for the work that you do. And this really is so meaningful for many reasons, but precisely because of the political atmosphere in this country right now. When I moved to San Francisco in 1997, I never thought that we would be back where we are now. I thought that this would just be long over. And the fact that we now have just the level of not just hate among individuals, but hate that frankly is powered by elected officials. I like that officials who have decided they're going to make their political careers on the backs of queer kids, the most vulnerable people in existence. They're going to imagine, what kind of mentality is that, I'm going to climb up the wrong by demonizing these kids. You have people who've decided that it's okay to say that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles. That was like the stuff from like 50, 60, 100 years ago, not 2024. And the fact that they are now saying that anything that represents our community, whether it's a book in a library or whether it's a rainbow flag being flown at a school or on a government building that that is somehow grooming and there's something just wrong with that and it's somehow harmful to kids when it's the exact opposite. It is uplifting for kids. It's helping to save the lives of kids and that's what this flag is about. This flag represents everyone. And I am just so thrilled that what started out as a Gilbert making a beautiful flag has just blossomed into this positive force. When I came out in 1990, it was about the pink triangle, which is also incredibly important and powerful, but it was also a reminder of a horrific thing that happened, and it was sort of in owning that and reminding people. But then for the rainbow flag to come out to say we're going to also, in addition to remembering the pain and what the horror of what happened in the Holocaust, we're also going to look towards the future and not to the flag is about. And it also, this particular flag, and God bless Tom Taylor for the work that he did over the years, a number of times if we need any kind of bespoke rainbow flag or anything, you go to Tom and he would deliver whatever we needed. But this flag, it is a capstone for what this neighborhood means. Because as all of these kids are suffering in silence around the country and their parents are suffering in silence and trans people and drag queens who are being criminalized are suffering in silence all over the country, they know and they see that there's hope in part because of what we are in the Castro. And that's why it's so important for this neighborhood to be all that it can be. And so when we work so hard as a community to widen the Castro street sidewalks and to put the rainbow on or walk in and the history plaques, when we are going to Madam Mayor create a much larger and amazing LGBT history museum in this neighborhood. We're going to do that. When we put the rainbow crosswalks at 18th and Castro, when we have the most fricking amazing Harvey Milk Plaza and Jane Warner Plaza, which is going to happen, thank you again for all of your work to make that happen. And then, capping it all will be this beautiful landmark rainbow flag and we are going to send the most powerful signal to the entire world that the bigots are never going to win. So let's celebrate today and thank you to everyone who made this possible. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Weiner, and we have now come to the point where we will ask our mayor to say a few words and then to sign the legislation. I will say a few words about our mayor. It has been, our terms have largely overlapped, at least her term is mayor and my term is supervisor. And it, you know, I didn't support her. She didn't support me. But I will say that she has been a phenomenal partner around so many issues of importance to the queer community, unprecedented investments in our LGBT seniors, in our youth, an unprecedented commitment to our trans community as measured through a number of different initiatives and unprecedented investments in queer arts and culture. I named some of the gay, gay, gay folks in the city government who are there, but there are many queer people in important positions in our city government who got there because London breed appointed them and gave them a chance to shine. And finally, just on the day to day, business of being a supervisor, dealing with whatever things may be popping up in the Castro that may need to be addressed. Mayor Breed often spots issues before I do. She spends time in the neighborhood. And she's been, she and her team really have been, you know, steady partners in improving conditions and I'm grateful for that as well. So, Matt and Mayor come up and talk to us about the rainbow flag. I know you're not supposed to have a favorite. You're not supposed to have a favorite. Let me just say how proud I am to be here with this extraordinary resilient community and how proud I am to be here with so many of our great leaders of positions that have gotten us to this place, because it doesn't just happen because someone wants it to happen. It happens because people work together in order to make the right things happen, and the opportunity to look at what this flag represents. It's everything San Francisco. And when I say everything San Francisco, this city has been through very challenging times over the decades. And this flag continues to fly high as a symbol of hope through even some of our darkest days. What I appreciate the most about being here in the Castro community is that we work together supervisor to make those unprecedented investments in the things to address the disparities that we know have existed in San Francisco. We talk about our values, but when we put policy and dollars into those values, we demonstrate our strength as a city and our commitment to showing the rest of the world how it should be done. So when I became mayor, it was not even a question as to what we were going to do together. The need for a museum that represents this community in a way that highlights all of the challenges that have existed that has elevated this community and this city being a place of hope and refuge for others who are escaping really challenging laws and persecution and even being disowned by their own families. This city has always represented that, and we need to make sure this Amphoran Sisko is a place where you get to see that. When you come to the Castro, and you land in Harvey Milk Plaza, you need to see that history. Not just hear the name, but see it and learn about it and understand it. And when you walk off that plaza that will be completely redesigned and will be brilliant and will be a symbol of hope, you will see a community of people. You will be able to go to the museum and walk through and really take it all in and understand and that flag will be right in the center of it all. Right in the center of it all. Knowing that you can take a bit of pride in the fact that here you don't have to hide who you are or who you love. That is what this represents. And I want to appreciate the work that Charlie is talking about. And appreciate how you are putting it into perspective. Because here we take it for granted. Because we're San Francisco. But San Francisco has to be that place that sends people out into the world to watch these laws, to help get other elected officials in office, in power, to ensure that they are standing up against hate, to protect our LGBTQ leaders like Scott Wiener, who is harassed on a regular basis, even as he walks on a plane. It is horrible, but we are never going to let that deter us from the work that we know we have to do. Because even if we have political differences, we can all agree that uplifting and supporting and recognizing and investing in our LGBTQ community will always be at the forefront of our values here in San Francisco. So I am proud to be here today and to sign this legislation and to share it and tag every anti-LGBT elected leader in the world and tell them to bring it. Because this is San Francisco and we will never back down. Okay, so what we're going to do now, everyone, is our mayor is going to sign the legislation with some folks who have been asked to come forward standing behind her. So if you could do that now. And then after that we're going to take this amazing flag. The Terry Ashton Bennett has provided here and we're going to go outside and walk up and Terry will lead the flag changing ceremony. Charlie, Charlie, you two may have been here. Right there. One more. Side and side. Did you see that? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. S.F. Gov. TV San Francisco Government Television Good afternoon. An announcement for ASL viewers. Due to the importance of showing unobstructed videos, we ask that our ASL viewers use the WebEx link provided in the description of the live stream. For viewers who would like this Town Hall meeting translated, please click on the WebEx link in the live stream description and click the icon in the bottom left corner to select your preferred language. Good afternoon. We're here today for a virtual Town Hall regarding an officer-involved shooting that occurred on Friday, September 13th, 2024 at Powell Street Station. Before proceeding, I'd like to announce to our viewing and listening audience that this town hall is being translated into Spanish, Cantonese, and American Sign Language ASL for members of our community who speak those languages. Without suggesting a premature judgment on the appropriateness of the forced used in this incident, today's presentation will include details from an officer involved shooting incident that injured 30-year-old Justin Matthew Alderman. In the San Francisco Police Department, we recognize that our sworn duty as law enforcement officers imposes no more solemn obligation on us than to honor and respect the sanctity of human life. We also know that as police officers, we are sometimes required to use force, including deadly force at times, and the performance of our duties. We recognize too that officer-involved shootings can have traumatic effects on members of our communities, especially for individuals, their families, and loved ones who have suffered traumas of their own encounters with the criminal justice system, wherever it may be. To any of our viewers experiencing trauma from this incident or from information or images that we will present during this town hall, please know that help is available to you. You may contact the San Francisco Department of Public Health's Crisis Line at 415-970-3800 for trauma services. Here is what we hope to accomplish today. First and foremost, it is the San Francisco Police Department's aspiration to be a national model of 21st century policing. We work to earn the trust of those we serve by committing to transparency and to the tennis of procedural justice. In this process and in this town hall presentation, procedural justice depends on the legitimacy of police as well as our entire criminal justice system. With these town halls, we work through embody the foundational tennis of what procedural justice is all about. We will release the facts known to us at this time about this incident. We will try to do so in a manner that is impartial and neutral. We will answer questions from members of the public as well as members of the news media. And we will listen to public feedback. Acting Commander Mark M. will be presenting the facts of this case in a few minutes. Well, before turning the floor over to him, however, I want to emphasize that this incident is subject to multiple independent and ongoing investigations. As such, there may be some information we cannot release at this time, either because the release of certain information is prohibited by law, or because the release of certain information is prohibited by law, or because the release of certain information could compromise an ongoing investigation, or because certain facts have not yet been established with certainty. In other words, we are not able to release unconfirmed information. Next, acting Commander Mark M.'s presentation will include a detailed verbal narrative of the facts as we know them as well as audio and video content from the officer involved shooting incident. SFPD officers who responded to the scene were wearing department-issued body-worn cameras which were activated while they were on their way to the incident, consistent with our body-worn camera policy. Department General Order 10.11, you will see body-worn cameras or BWC video from those officers from multiple perspectives. At the San Francisco Police Department, our commitment to full transparency has guided our officer-involved shooting investigations and town halls for several years now. Although our practices predate the enactment of many police transparency and accountability laws in California, we believe our approach has remained consistent with the letter and spirit of reforms implemented by the Senate Bill 1421 for police transparency. And the assembly bill 1506 for police accountability. SFPD's commitment to transparency in this process will also be reflected in our release of information online. Video from this town hall including audio recordings from 911 calls and dispatchers and the video footage I just mentioned will be posted on SFPD's website at sanfrancescopolice.org. It will remain available there for public viewing. As a reminder, all of SFPD's governing policies and procedures can also be found on our website. San Francisco Police Department Directors mandate that we release the names of officers from officer-involved shootings on less safety concerns argue against disclosure. In this matter, we identified no safety concerns and acting commander Mark M. will release the names of the officers as part of his presentation. Now I would like to explain the investigative processes for an officer-involved shooting. San Francisco has a multi-agency response to officer-involved shootings and each agency's investigation is independent. Whenever an officer involved shooting occurs in San Francisco involving an on-duty San Francisco police officer, the following agencies are immediately notified. The SFPD's investigative services detail, or ISD, is the unit responsible for investigating the events that led up to the office involved shooting. The SFPD's Internal Affairs Division or IAD is responsible for conducting an administrative investigation to determine if the officer or officer is responsible for the OIS are in compliance with the standards and requirements of SFPD policy. Although the investigations of both SFPD units run in parallel, each has a distinct investigative purview and focus. Each maintains a strict internal firewall to comply with legal standards and requirements. The San Francisco Department of Police Accountability or DPA conducts an independent administrative investigation. San Francisco Voters created DPA as a successor to the Office of Citizen Complaints, with their passage of Proposition D in June in the June 2016 election. DPA investigates all SFPD incidents in which any of our officers discharge a weapon within the course and scope of their duties. And whenever that discharge results in an individual's injury or death. The San Francisco District Attorney's Office, independent investigation bureau, or IIB, is responsible for determining the legality of the officer involved shooting. Based on their independent investigation and review, the district attorney of the county of San Francisco will make the final decision as to whether the involved officer's actions comply with the laws of the state of California. All notified agencies and their investigators and appropriate personnel began their respective independent investigations on this case. Finally, I'd like to point out that we take community feedback very seriously. Based on the feedback from prior officer-involved shooting town halls, we will also take questions and answers and answer them to the extent we're able. Understanding that this incident remains an ongoing investigation. We will allocate one hour for public comment and questions. Thank you very much for joining us today and now acting commander Mark M. The officer involved shooting or OIS discussed in this presentation occurred on Friday September 13th 2024 at approximately 1034 AM. The OIS was preceded by officers engaged in an HSOC resolution operation on the 400 block of Jesse Street. Officers on view, a person sleeping in the driver's seat of a stolen BMW with a silver revolver lying in plain view on the front passenger seat. While attempting to detain the subject, he was able to exit the vehicle with the revolver flee east on Jesse Street to Fifth Street, enter and exit a liquor store with officers in pursuit the entire time. Upon exiting the liquor store, the subject proceeded north on Fifth Street to the underground Powell Street station where the OIS occurred. In this presentation, you will hear the following police terminology and radio code language commonly used by officers. 916 is a suspicious person in a vehicle. 221 is a person with a gun. 1020 is location. 1030 is a stolen vehicle or a wanted person. Code 33 is emergency clear the radio channel. Spike strips are tire deflation devices. Bola wrap or wrap is issued to members of the specialist team and tactical unit. It is a handheld remote restraint device that discharges an eight-foot Bola-style Kevlar tether to temporarily restrain or entangle an individual. 408 is an ambulance. Code 4 is no further assistance required. BWC is body-worn camera. This batch is the Department of Emergency Management, Dispatcher, and Radio Communications System. ERIW or Extended Range Impact Weapon is a less lethal force option. Officers use this weapon to deploy a projectile commonly referred to as a bean bag or a 40-foam baton. ERIWs are designed to temporarily incapacitate an individual. Red Light is a verbal announcement to other officers of the intent to deploy the ERIW. HSOC resolution operation is a collaborative city operation with the SFPD and other agencies addressing homelessness and behavioral health issues on the streets of San Francisco. The precise chronology of this incident is currently under investigation. We are still in the very early stages of an administrative investigation that can take months to complete and our understanding of the incident may change as additional evidence is collected and reviewed. The times presented are approximate. The following is a summary of the events as they are understood today and may evolve as further information is learned through the investigation. As of September 23rd, 2024, we believe the facts are as follows. On Friday, September 13th, 2024, officers were assigned to an HSOC resolution operation in the 6th Street corridor. At approximately 10 a.m., while engaged in this operation on the 400 block of Jesse Street, officer number one observed a subject sleeping in the driver's seat of a white BMW, what the silver revolver lying in plain view on the front passenger seat next to him. The subject was later identified as Justin Matthew Alderman. Officer number one requested a ballistic shield and to have other HSOC officers tactically reposition their vehicles to prevent Mr. Alderman from fleeing in the BMW. An unmarked police vehicle was parked in the street and a marked police vehicle was parked directly behind the BMW. Officer number one notified dispatch of the situation and asked for additional officers. Officer number one requested a record check on the license plate affixed to the rear of the BMW through dispatch. Dispatching formed officer number one that the license plate came back clear of criminal wants. Upon closer inspection of the BMW officers found another license plate concealed beneath the original license plate they had just checked. A record check was conducted on the concealed license plate concealed beneath the original license plate they had just checked. A record check was conducted on the concealed license plate. This batch informed Officer Number One that the vehicle was 1030. At this time Officer Number One requested a code 33. When acting Sergeant Number One arrived on the scene, Officer Number One informed him of the situation. An officer parked an additional marked police vehicle on the sidewalk in front of the BMW to prevent Mr. Alderman from driving onto the sidewalk and escaping. Officer staged behind the Marked Police vehicle which was parked behind the BMW and discussed a plan to order Mr. Alderman out of the vehicle. Additional officers arrived on the scene and a spike strip was deployed in front of the right rear tire of the BMW. Acting Sergeant number one briefed the additional officers on the plan. During the briefing one officer was designated to give commands and an arrest team was formed. Utilizing a police vehicle's PA system Mr. Alderman was given commands to exit the vehicle, keep his hands up, and to not reach for anything. These commands were repeated for approximately three minutes. Mr. Alderman opened both of the right side passenger doors, and as he looked at the officers, he exited the BMW to the front door with the revolver. Mr. Alderman then turned around and proceeded to walk eastbound on Jesse Street. Officers yelled out, quote, hands up, hands up. He's got the gun. Officers broadcasted that Mr. Alderman was headed towards Mint Plaza. Mr. Alderman proceeded down Jesse Street into Mint Plaza and jogged past several officers and San Francisco sheriff's deputies that were taking cover at Jesse Street and Mint. Officer number two, you'll know, quote, drop the gun, drop the gun. Mr. Alderman ignored his commands and kept walking with the revolver in his right hand, coined it in the pavement. As Mr. Alderman proceeded eastbound through Mint Plaza, officer number two followed him and gave several commands along with other pursuing officers and deputies. Those commands included quote, hey, do not point it, put it down, and put the gun down. These commands were given several times. As Mr. Alderman reached Fifth Street, he turned left and proceeded to walk northbound on Fifth Street. When Officer No. 2 reached the corner, he announced for other officers to hold as Mr. Alderman has stopped in the doorway of a business located on that corner. Mr. Alderman paused there for a moment and then ran northbound on Fifth Street into a liquor store. An employee of the liquor store quickly exited and informed numerous arriving officers that Mr. Alderman had run into the store and hid behind the front counter. The employee told the officers that there was no one else in the store and that there was no other way out. Acting Sergeant number one started formulating a plan and began implementing it. A ballistic shield was already in place and two marked police vehicles were to be positioned to triangulate on the liquor store. Acting Sergeant number one was also directing officers to shut down the street. Utilizing the PA system of the marked police vehicle an officer started to make announcements. Quote, hey suspect suspect inside, come out with your hands up. Please, come out with your hands up. As Mr. Alderman exited the business after approximately one and a half minutes, officers yelled out, quote, keep your hands up. Mr. Alderman ignored the commands, kept his right hand at his waistband and proceeded to walk northbound on fifth street. As numerous officers followed Mr. Alderman, acting sergeant number one approach Mr. Alderman from the rear and activated his department issued Bola Wrap unsuccessfully as Mr. Alderman continued walking northbound. Officers requested ERIWs as they continued to follow Mr. Alderman. Officer number three ordered Mr. Alderman to quote, get your hands out of your pocket or you're going to follow Mr. Alderman. Officer number three ordered Mr. Alderman to quote, get your hands out of your pocket or you're going to get shot. While Mr. Alderman made his way through Jesse Street, Mint Plaza and Fifth Street, officers diverted as many innocent bystanders out of his path as possible. However numerous other bystanders were caught in the fluid situation and were forced to hide and or take cover. When Mr. Alderman reached Market Street, he ran northbound across the cable car towards the cable car turn around located at Powell and Market Street, where there were numerous people walking around and waiting in line for the cable car. Mr. Alderman proceeded down the Powell Street station escalator and entered the concourse level, a major transportation hub that had numerous people walking about. Numerous officers and deputies pursued Mr. Alderman down the escalator. As Sergeant number three entered Powell Street station, he looked to us left and saw Mr. Alderman hiding in a dark corner. Mr. Alderman was holding the revolver in his right hand, which was pointed at the ground. Mr. Alderman was holding the revolver in his right hand which was pointed at the ground. Mr. Alderman walked southbound through the concourse while being given commands to put the gun down. While being towed to put the gun down, Mr. Alderman transferred the revolver to his left hand and then pointed his right index finger toward sergeant number three. Mr. Alderman was given additional commands to enumerous officers as he continued to walk southbound through the concourse. Acting Sergeant No. 1 yelled, quote, rap, rap, rap, indicating that he would intend to activate the Bola rap. Sergeant No. 1 then activated the Bola rap a second time. Immediately after the Bola rap was activated, Mr. Alderman turned around and faced the officers briefly. Mr. Alderman turned back around, took a couple of steps, stopped, and then started to remove the bullet wrap from his legs. When Mr. Alderman turned around to face the officers, he turned the revolver in the direction of acting sergeant number one and other numerous officers. As this situation unfolded some bystanders were trapped and forced to coward down next to whatever was available. As Mr. Alderman was attempting to remove the Bola Wrap, acting sergeant number one again yelled, quote, rap, rap, rap and activated the Bola Wrap a third time. Mr. Alderman continued to walk southbound through the concourse towards the staircase escalator leading to Market Street. The staircase is located adjacent to San Francisco Center Mall. While numerous officers followed Mr. Alderman directly into the Poultry Station, officer number four in Plainclose Officer number one arrived on the scene and proceeded to the south side staircase. Officer number four in Plainclose officer number one arrived on the scene and proceeded to the south side staircase. Officer number four in Plain closed officer number one ran down the stairs to Inter-Palestreet station. Shortly after Mr. Alderman walked around the corner to access the staircase escalator. Mr. Alderman had to revolver in his right hand and was in the process of raising his right arm in an upward motion as he walked towards the staircase. As Officer Number 4 retreated backwards up the staircase, he discharged his department issued fire arm. Plain clothes Officer Number 1 deployed less lethal rounds from his ERIW. When Mr. Alderman's... you you Thank you so much. We are now back in session for our regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting for September 24th, 2024. And at this point, we would entertain a motion at the Board finds that it is in the best interest of the public that the Board elect at this time not to disclose is closed session deliberations. Motion made by supervisor Melgar, seconded by supervisor Mellem, aye. Supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye. Supervisor Engardio. Engardio, aye. Supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar. Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Peskin. Peskin, absent. Supervisor Preston. Preston, aye. Supervisor Ronan. Ronan I, Supervisor Safa Yi. Safa Yi, I, Supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie, I, and Supervisor Walton. I. Walton, I, there are 10 I's. Thank you. Item passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, would you please call our 230 Special Order Commendations and we're going to start with Supervisor Preston and then Supervisor Mandelman. Thank you. Can we start with that? Supervisor Mandelman? Not a problem. Supervisor Mandelman, you are up. Great and we're gonna do this for Noey walks in a descent shot, but I did want to say some nice things about them. Today I am offering a special commendation to Noey Walks in the darkest days of COVID. Flyers began showing up around Noee Valley. Come walk with us on Saturday morning. No We Walks sprang up as an antidote to revive community spirit dampened by the sudden atmosphere of the pandemic. Neighbors soon began showing up, eager to connect with each other in a safe, consistent, easy and fun way. Rudy Saddleberger, for whom I will be offering an in-memorium today, began showing up to at 97 years old. And look at them now. Every Saturday morning, dozens show up for a stroll up and back on Sanchez between 24th and 30th streets. Walkers bring dogs, pick up trash, and get to know one another. Earlier this year, they threw a Rudy of birthday patch with party hats for his 100th birthday. The walks with brainchild of Noe resident, Chris Nanda, and their success far exceeded his wildest expectations. Turned us range from 15 to 70 people, depending on the weather. It's about a mile, and I asked folks to change who they're walking with halfway along to spur new friendships he said he explained. Oftentimes, these friendships are intergenerational. Rudy always helped with that. At the end, there's time for announcements and local news. It's a low stakes weight interact with the community. Chris added, indeed. Noay walks, offers a fun way to meet neighbors and stretch our legs in a relaxed way. Folks can show up Saturdays at 10 a.m. and see the results. So much of the magic of city life springs from residents taking the initiative to make their communities better. Noay walks is an inspiring example and I want to thank Chris Nanda and we gave him his certificate and them their certificate earlier today. And thank you colleagues for indulging me in telling you a little bit about Noe Walks. Thank you, Supervisor Mounderman. And we apologize to any awardees for today's timing. Supervisor Preston. Thank you very much, President Walden. And thank you for allowing me some space in the accommodations for this in Memoriam. As I mentioned, we have some family members who are here and appreciate the opportunity to be able to do this in Memoriam now. Colleagues, today I would like to offer an in Memoriam forIresa Garavi, known as Ali, to his friends, family, and community. Ali was the owner of Central Coffee Tea and Spice in the north of Panhandle Neighborhood for 29 years. Ali was born in Tehran, Iran, on November 14, 1961, and spent his early years there attending elementary school and junior high. In 1975 at the age of 14, he moved to the United States and attended high school in Portland, Oregon, where his older brothers, Abdi and Muhammad, who are here today, they were already pursuing their education there. Ali eventually moved to the Chicago area where he graduated from Niles Township Community High School in 1979. After high school, Ali found himself working at several different jobs and ultimately settled on a career in food service. He worked as an assistant pastry chef in a large bakery in Chicago and it was there that he decided that he wanted to own his own cafe someday. He moved to San Francisco and he did exactly that. In 1995 Ali opened Central Coffee Tea and Spice at Central and Hays in our district. For Ali, the cafe was not just about owning his own business, it was about people. He wanted to create a space for connection and for building community. Central coffee became a home base, a place where those in need could find refuge and those seeking conversation would always find a listening ear. Ali's thirst for knowledge extended far beyond the walls of his Qafi. He was a deep thinker, someone with ideas ahead of his time. His brothers shared with us a story about Ali as a child in Tehran. Always a big thinker, he mapped out a whole irrigation plan for bringing water from the Persian Gulf to irrigate the desert and centrally run Something that is only currently being implemented some 40 years later His conversations ranged broadly from big bang theory to ocean floor Exploration and his ability to absorb and impart knowledge left a lasting impression on all who met him I personally knew Ali for the last 28 years and I have had so many conversations with him. I will say this, none of them were short. All of them were interesting. Every conversation was truly an exploration of something meaningful, sharing his perspective and knowledge, raising probing questions and trying to make sense of the world around us and how we might make it better. From the big picture to the most local, Ali was intellectually curious, socially conscious, and deeply engaging. More than anything, Ali was a humanist at heart. He took a genuine interest in every person he met from the youngest newborn to the oldest elder. He wanted to know their stories, understand their struggles, and help where he could. He will be remembered for living a life that was rich in connections, kindness, and community, and his impact extended far beyond his immediate circle. People from all corners of the world have shared stories of how he touched their lives, particularly in the days since his passing. His family has been extremely touched by the wide network of people who knew and loved Ali and now join them in mourning his loss. Ali Reza, Garavi is survived by his brothers, Abdi and Muhammad. He's preceded in death by his mother who passed away in 2018 and his father who passed away in 1994. His legacy will live on in the countless lives he touched and the communities he built, one conversation and one act of kindness at a time. Rest in peace, Ali. Thank you, supervisor, President and our condolences goes out to the entire family. Madam Clerk, would you please call our 3 p.m. Special Order. Items 22 through 25 comprise the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act issued as a general planning evaluation by the planning department on April 5, 2024 for the proposed project at 700 Indiana Street to allow the construction of more than 25,000 gross square feet in the urban mixed use district and to allow for an exception from horizontal mass reduction requirements for large lots of planning code as part of the project that would demolish a 15,000 and 68 square foot one story commercial building and construct a new 70,650 gross square foot, three story, 48 foot tall, non-life science laboratory building. Within the urban mixed-use zoning district, also the fringe financial service restricted use district, and a 58x height and bulk district. Item 23 is the motion that affirms the planning departments determination that the proposed project at 700 Indiana Street is exempt from further environmental review. Item 24 is the motion that conditionally reverses the department's determination, subject to the adoption of written findings of the board in support of the determination and item 25 directs, the preparation of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the board of the House same call, President Peskin is excused. And now we have a hearing on the matter described by the clerk. So we are going to give 10 minutes to the appellate and then we'll ask questions if we have any in here public comment and there we're here from here from planning and then we will ask any questions and have anyone who wants to provide public comment on planning's discussion and then the appellate will have two minutes for a rebuttal. So right now I believe we have JR Epler representing the appellate. I'm sorry. Mr. President, we are setting the timer for 10 minutes. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. President and Petr Aboucett's neighborhood association, and today I'm here with my neighbors to ask the U-Rverse the general plan evaluation for the proposed project at 700 Indiana, because the planning department failed to do an adequate review of the project and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Sequel informs government decisions and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed activities and provides mitigations to make them less significant. The project's secret review fell short in meeting the goals of adequate public notification and mitigation. Granting this appeal would allow for the opportunity for a focus review to address the general plan evaluations, errors and omissions. Next slide please. The project is biotechnology laboratory directly across the street from the spree park. Dogpatch is only wreck-and-park open space. There are two large apartment buildings directly adjacent to the project and condo buildings on two other sides of the park. Las Coila International School is two blocks away and two other schools are within 1000 feet. Next slide please. A project otherwise consistent with the plan EIR requires additional environmental review where there are potentially significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site. That we're not analyzing plenty IR or where there's new information. Determining the significance of impacts and identifying appropriate mitigation simply can't be done without this review. In the planning department here, failed to consider the particular circumstances for this project and justified the general plan evaluation based only on consistency with the development density established by the zoning of the site under the Central Waterfront Area Plan. First, the GPs project description is inadequate for the purpose of environmental analysis. Next slide, please. Secret requires an accurate stable finite project description. The GPE fails to describe the biotechnical nature of the laboratory use for the project. As you can see from this definition, the planning codes definition laboratory is broad and covers a variety of life science and non-life science uses, each with different environmental impacts. Here, an accurate description is especially relevant as the planned EIR did not fully analyze life science or biotechnology as a use at the site, instead referring to future regulations that never came to fruition. In other words, the description was not at the detail needed for review of potential environmental impacts as required by CEQA guidelines. The CP also felt to implement Plan EIR air quality mitigations. Go back to slides to the site area. The Plan EIR recognized that potential for significant air quality impacts in its mitigation G4. The mitigation states that for biotechnology use, the Planned Department shall require the preparation of analysis that includes, at a minimum, a site survey to identify residential or other sensitive uses within 1000 feet. That's the circle there of the project site prior to the first project approval action. Sensitive receptors include children and other folks with heightened negative health outcomes due to exposure of air pollution and the locations where these receptors congregate are considered the sensitive uses. Now that language is clear that the survey should be done prior to the first project approval action and there's no nuance and we think this requirement is deliberate because that survey identifying sensitive uses would inform them about the potential impacts and allow them full participation of the entitlement process to ensure that their quality risk are properly identified and prevented i.e. the goals of CEQA prior to the construction of the project. Failure to comply with this plan EIR requirement to identify the multiple schools, daycare centers, and other sensitive uses means that these sensitive uses don't have a recourse that's clear. It means that the project is already constructed when the analysis is done and just put simply this department's proposed mitigation is not consistent with the plan EIR. Further the CPO shadow analysis omitted impacts to the dog patch arts plaza, a public open space. A shadow analysis is required in two circumstances. If a project is under the shadow ordinance or if a project under SQL would cast shadow on an open space such that its use could be adversely affected. The department conducted its analysis on a final report, shadow report that conducted the shadow ordinance analysis for a spree park, and a sequel analysis for the Avalon dog park, a small public open space directly to the south of the project that already experienced this extensive shadowing. There is, however, no mention of the dog patch arts plaza, which is directly north of the project, a public open space anywhere in the final report, and it's clear that the project will cast a shadow that may impact its use. Now the project sponsor did provide a memo at the commission hearing after public comment concluded that memo's dated the same day as the commission hearing that assessed the shadow and the arts plaza but this memo was produced after the planning department had completed its analysis. Wasn't it made available for public review or for the planning department, planning department prior to publication for the GPE? So how could we analyze these impacts as required under SICWA without that timely analysis that department just did not consider the shadowing of the arts plaza? Last, hazards and hazardous materials for biotech use at this site were not analyzed in the Plan EIR or GPE in no mitigations for those impacts of the biohazards were identified. Go to the last slide, please. Biotech laboratories deal with a variety of materials that weren't considered in the Plan EIR, including infectious agents of varying degrees of the Evality, radioactive materials, and various organic compounds. Many of these materials can pose a risk to workers and to the community, particularly winning close proximity to residential uses of Public Park, several schools and daycare facilities. It's this proximity of the uses that's one of the peculiar aspects of this project and one non-anticipated or analyzed in the Plan EIR. While the Plan EIR considered laboratory use, specifically biotech use in non-residential settings for air quality, there's been no analysis of the biohazard of the Plan EIR's hazardous materials section. There's also no mention of hazards or hazardous materials whatsoever in the GPE. And there's no evidence of this efficiency of the existing regulations. These facilities are essentially black boxes. They're incubator, this is an incubator space for multiple bio-tech startups, and there's no certainty as what specific activities will occur on site and what materials we present. Enforcement under the various regulations that were pointed out and the other memos regarding this case tends to be on a complaint basis. And oversight by state and federal agencies is generally self-policed. When questioned directly by the planning department, the project entitlement team commented that this would be a biosafety level 2 facility. Now that's not the only bio-level could have. The entitlement and the current planning code would allow a change to biosafety level 3, which might involve work with fatal pathogens such as COVID. At a minimum, the potential for dangers to nearby communities due to human error, accidents, natural disasters at this particular site should have been thoroughly analyzed along with the provision of workable mitigations, including potential project design changes, oversight and emergency planning. The complete omission review, and either the Plan EIR or the CPE, in this case lacks any reasonable justification. In conclusion, this project may have significant non-medicable effects on the environment, which are peculiar to the subject project, that were not addressed, and as significant in the Easter neighborhoods, Plan Environmental Impact Report, and for which new information was unknown when the Plan EIR, the GP, were certified. The planning commission's determination has to the adequacy of the general plan evaluation should be provoked and this appeal upheld. To talk a little bit more about how this plays out with the neighbors in the community, I present Don Van Leicie, the president of the Dog Patch Neighborhood Association. Thanks. Good evening supervisors and board staff. Thank you for your time. I know it's been a long evening or a long day at this point. My name is Donovan Lacey. I'm the president of the Dog Patch Neighborhood Association. So you've heard the legal arguments for our appeal of the sequel approval. I'm here to share a little bit of the concerns of our neighbors regarding the proposed project at 700 Indiana. In my community leadership role, I speak with a wide range of neighbors, and many of whom have questions and concerns about the proposed project at 700 Indiana. Earlier this summer at one of our monthly cleanup days, you heard one about earlier, I spoke with a young mother who lives adjacent to this property. She asked me, why would we be opposed to something that seems so positive as a biotech incubator. Well, we explained, I basically shared the info, the biosafety level, the air quality, and the shadow studies that we just learned about from the project. And she immediately turned to me and said, where do I write my letter of opposition? She, like so many in our community, are concerned about these emissions and the lack of a full sequel review for this project. In Dogpatch, we have a growing population, a large number of young families with infants and children, and limited open space where neighborhood kids can play. Two of those spaces are the spree park and the Dog Patch Arch Plaza, both of which are negatively impact by this project. And as JR mentioned, the Dog Patch Arch Plaza is not even mentioned anywhere in the final shadow report. My mom was a molecular genesis and when we were we when I grew up she worked in a wide array of labs across the country. These facilities were never in neighborhoods. They weren't next to schools or playgrounds or next to homes. Yet this project would sit between two large apartment buildings across the street from a spree park and it's within several blocks of three community schools. My neighbors and I want to know how the project was approved without even the basic mapping of sensitive receptors like schools and playgrounds. Our children are truly our most vulnerable and is up to all of us to protect them. So in closing, the general plan evaluation has failed to address the basic goals of a Sequel review. And as deprived our community of the right to be informed and protected, the Sequel approval should be overturned and the appeal upheld. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lacey and thank you, Mr. Epler. We would now hear, unless colleagues, if you have any questions if not we will now go to public comment on this item for those in support of the appeal. Public comment on this item for anyone in support of the appeal, public comment for support of the appeal is now closed. We will now hear from the planning department. And my apologies as I explained earlier. We also after planning and questions from the Board of Supervisors, we will hear from the project sponsor. Good evening, supervisor Walton and board members. My name is Sherry George, planning department staff. With me today are Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer, joint of rent and other staff also with planning. I'm going to give the bulk of today's presentation and the ER I would like to say a few remarks. The decision before you is whether to adopt the motion to uphold the department's sequel determination of a general plan evaluation or GPE issued for 700 Indiana Street. Our presentation today will highlight our key responses that addresses why the appeal fails to meet the legal standard of showing that the planning department's issuance of the GPE for the project is not supported by substantial evidence. I'll start with a brief project overview. The proposed project is located at 700 Indiana Street within the urban mixed use, UMU zoning district in the central waterfront plan area of the eastern neighborhoods plan. The project involves demolishing the existing vacant commercial storage building on the 31,000 square foot site and constructing a new three-story laboratory building totaling approximately 72,000 square feet. The building would be accompanied by outdoor common space, roof, top terraces, and basement level parking. The department issued a type of secret determination that we call a GPE, which follows the mandate of Sequise Section 210-83.3 and Sequise Guidelines Section 15183. The state law provisions mandate that projects consistent with the development density established by the general plan policies for which an environmental impact report or EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except to examine whether there are peculiar effects. The 700 Indiana Street Project is consistent with the development density established by the Central Waterfront plan area for which the Easter neighborhoods rezoning in area plans EIR was certified. As a programmatic EIR the Easter neighborhoods EIR evaluated the impacts of potential physical changes that could result from the proposed rezoning controls, including sites that would be rezoned for UMU districts, which allow for laboratory and biotechnical uses like those of the proposed project. Under the streamlined review process, mandated by SIKWA, the planning department studies whether this project would result in environmental impacts that are new or more severe than those disclosed in the prior EIR. Based on the substantial evidence, the department determined that the project would not result in peculiar or new significant impacts. The rest of the presentation addresses the concerns raised by the appellant today. I'm not gonna cover all of them in my remarks, but instead I'll focus on a few key issues. The appellants contend that the project is inconsistent with the UMU zoning, particularly with respect to laboratory uses. However, this specific zoning dispute is a matter that has been appealed to the board of appeals and is not within the scope of the SIKWA appeal that is the focus of today's hearing. For the purposes of the SIKWA analysis for the GPE, what matters is that the project is consistent with the development density established by the zoning requirements of the central waterfront plan area for which the Easter neighborhoods EIR was certified. As a response one in our first memorandum explains, the project satisfies this criterion and therefore is eligible for a GPE under SQL Guidelines Section 1583. The appellants argue that the project description lacks sufficient detail, particularly regarding the Laboratories' biotechnical details. As stated in our September 16 response, the GPE's project description provides enough information about the proposed use, site characteristics, and surroundings in enough detail sufficient for our evaluation of environmental impacts, as directed by Section 15124 of the Seagua Guidelines. The appellant raises concerns about several environmental impacts as shown on this slide. I'd like to briefly touch on shadow air quality and hazardous materials. For shadow, two studies were completed for the 700 Indiana Street Project. The first shadow study analyzed impacts to a spreet park, a wrecking park property, and to Avalon Dog Park. The second shadow study analyzed impacts to dog patch arts plaza. The conclusion from both of these studies determine that shadow impacts on parks and open spaces would be less than significant. For air quality, the appellance assert that the planning department failed to properly implement Eastern neighborhoods, EIR mitigation measure G4, to address the air quality impacts of the project. This is false. Project mitigation for regarding toxic air contaminants is consistent with the applicable measure of the Easter neighborhoods EIR and is equivalent in its effectiveness of that to the EIR measure. This approach aligns with Sequise Section 21080 and is supported by Sequise law. The department's reasons for modifying the EIR mitigation measure as described in the supplemental appeal response are supported by substantial evidence and do not disqualify the GPE. For hazardous materials, the Eastern neighborhoods EIR adequately analyzes potential hazardous material impacts related to biotechic laboratory uses. As stated in the department's appeal response letter, the GPE determined that the project does not pose any additional hazardous material risks beyond those already addressed in the EIR. And as our appeal response describes, the project would be highly regulated by multiple local, state, federal entities that would ensure worker and environmental safety. In conclusion, the Planning Department's determination that the proposed project qualifies for a general plan evaluation pursuant to SIGUA guidelines section 15183 is supported by substantial evidence in the record. As stated in the Department's appeal responses, the Eastern neighborhoods EIR and the GPE adequately and accurately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project for the purposes of environmental review under SEGA, including the topic areas of shadow, air quality and hazardous materials. The GPE is based on substantial evidence, and the appellant has not demonstrated otherwise. Therefore, the planning department respectfully recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the department's determination that the GPE conforms with the requirements of CEQA and deny the appeal. And now I'd like to turn things to, virtue our environmental review officer, Lisa Gibson. Good evening, supervisor Walton and members of the Board. I'm Lisa Gibson, your environmental review officer. You may recall that in February, I presented to this board on the appeal of the 2395 Sacramento Street, GPE, and I provided a somewhat more detailed overview of the Sequit Guidelines 15183 exemption than Sherry provided today. Less than two weeks after my presentation, a landmark appellate court ruling pertinent to appeals of this type of exemption was issued that I'd like to elevate to your attention as your environmental review officer. The cases Hilltop group of the County of San Diego and it concerns an appeal of this type of an exemption to that board of supervisors in San Diego which upheld the appeal and without getting lost in the details on appeal the court interpreted the Sequigide lines exemption language exactly as we have understood it and as we have presented it here to you today namely as a mandate to streamline review. The court held that a lead agency's decision to not abide by the mandate can be challenged in court, in that case it was the applicant. Other key holdings pertain to the board's failure to limit further environmental review to the specific effects enumerated in the guidelines section 15183 and there was also lack of substantial evidence regarding the findings and some other matters that again are peculiar to that specific to that case. But I just wanted to note that this case along with legislative actions such as Assembly Bill 1633 which became effective this year for projects subject to the Housing Accountability Act, reflect a market change and shift in the legal lands through which decisions about appeals of CEQA documents are being reviewed. And the presidential nature of the Hilltop case makes it evident that the decisions pertaining to exemptions on appeal must have substantial evidence in the record at the time of the decision on the appeal. And so therefore I wanted to just note that what's important here today is the evidence before this board at this time. There's been references to what was in the record at certain milestones in the decision making process and the environmental review process, but reflecting what is in the record today I think is important here. And also for all the other reasons we've explained, it's the conclusion of the planning department that there is no substantial evidence that would support upholding this appeal respectfully. And the concerns that we did here today, I think pertain to matters that are best addressed related to the appeal to the board of appeals and then pertain to just the merits of the project. That concludes my remarks and staff and I are available to respond to any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much for the presentation. I don't see any questions from colleagues, but I do have a few questions. First thing I just I want to make sure I'm clear. You you cited a San Diego case as an environmental standard. Supervisor Walton. Thank you for the question and Lisa Gibson. Yes, I was bringing this case to your attention given the presidential nature of this case because for purposes of the CEQA and our practice, case decisions have the effect of law and they establish standards by which we must abide in our overall decision-making and that are pertinent for the proceedings here today. No, I just never heard anyone correlate San Diego with being environmental leaders. But thank you. Question for planning to don't labs typically handle some type of hazardous material? Thank you for the question. Join Everett from planning staff. Yes we understand that labs could potentially handle hazardous materials and they are highly regulated by numerous regulators that we have a list of in our supplemental appeal response. And so what the fact that there's an extremely high possibility that hazardous materials could be handled on the site, why was there no analysis of hazardous material, no mention of bio hazards in the analysis? And it just seems to me, particularly from your statement, that there is a high potential of hazardous material being handled at a site right in community. Join us from planning staff. Yes, there was a discussion in the environmental impact report beginning on page 487. they're also a site to extensive federal, state, and local regulations as it applies to construction and soils. But they also added any future PDR or biotechnology uses, and that would be in these or neighborhoods, would be required to comply with existing regulations regarding the transport handling, use and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as any new regulations adopted by the city as a result of the report issued by the Bio-Sciences Task Force. And that was described also in the EIR. But ultimately, the conclusion for any biotech uses or any lab uses or any hazardous material uses, the conclusion in the EIR said compliance with the San Francisco Health Code, which incorporates state and federal requirements, would minimize potential exposure of site personnel and the public to any accidental releases of hazardous materials or waste and would also protect against potential environmental contamination. Therefore, the potential impact of accidental releases of hazardous materials associated with the development of new land uses resulting from implementation of the project would be less than significant. And no mitigation measures were required. Because we haven't analyzed those, so we don't know the level of hazardous material that might be on site. It would be analyzed by each of the uses and regulated by each of the regulators. After the fact. When they're getting their licenses for operation. And then your shadow analysis appears to be pretty incomplete. And I know it was produced after the general plan evaluation had been published. So can you explain that? Because that kind of creates doubt whether the conclusions were already predetermined. It's like planning already made a decision. Yeah, Supervisor Walton, Sherry George Planning Department, for the shadow impact analysis for the purposes of the GPE. We reviewed and analyzed a spreet park according to sections 295. Avalon Park was also included as supplemental analysis by request of the community. That's my understanding. A further request by the community was a my understanding requested for dog patch park and so supplemental analysis for that was included in the supplemental memo at the planning commission. Both are all analysis concluded the same conclusion that there would be less than significant impacts related to shadow on parks and open spaces. But did you come to this conclusion prior to analysis being complete? Supervisor Walz, Lisa Gibson, environmental review officer. Absolutely not. We have, we conduct our analysis in a manner that is objective and without prejudice, without favor, to the applicant. And we direct our consultants to conduct their work in a similar manner. I'm not certain where the basis of that question is, but absolutely not. And then as we talk about air quality, did you conduct the site survey mapping potential sensitive receptors prior to approval or hearings for this project? Please, Gibson. So the mitigation measure for air quality specifies that the analysis of the specific sensitive receptors and the vicinity of the project must occur prior to the occupancy of the building. Basically, the stepping back, the potential for an impact that we identified was related to the potential exposure of the public to toxic air contaminants that could be generated by the proposed projects operation and so the timing of the potential impact is with operation of the project. So the mitigation measures specifies that prior to operation the air quality analysis needs to be conducted and that would include a survey of potential receptors within a specified distance, 1,000 feet, at the time of the analysis being conducted and it's permitted to, it would allow for identification of those sensitive receptors that might be constructed between the time the environmental discrimination was issued and the actual operation of the project. So it's actually going to allow for a greater accuracy in identifying those that could be, would be sensitive receptors. Thank you. I don't have any more questions for planning. Don't see any colleagues on the staff. Thank you. I don't have any more questions for planning. Don't see any colleagues on the roster. Do we have a representative from the project sponsor here? Good evening. My name is Leah Makeley and I serve as Chief Operating Officer for NBCC Biolabs. At MVC we provide lab space and support for biotech startups developing new medicines, diagnostic tests, medical devices, and technologies to combat climate change and promote sustainability. Our scientists have committed their life's work to improving health and the environment and their conscientious citizens of our buildings, the neighborhood, the city, and the broader biotech community. Our scientists and staff want to live and work in San Francisco and prefer to bike, walk, or take public transit to work. NBC's laboratories are bio safety level 2, which means that organisms studied in our labs are unlikely to be hazardous to the community or the environment. Biotic laboratories like MBC are regulated by a number of agencies at the local, state, and federal levels, as you've heard, to ensure that our working practices are safe and responsible. Some of these agencies include the FDA, the U.S. Department of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Cal Oshah, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Environmental Reporting System Unified Program, the San Francisco Department of Public Health, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NBC is currently supporting 135 startups, and one way in which we do so is by helping them understand and comply with this complex landscape of safeguards and regulations, ensuring that we all operate responsibly to care for our neighborhood, community and our environment. But it's not just about the external responsibility, it's also about the well-being of our employees and our scientists working in our labs. And they are at the heart of our mission, their safety is our utmost priority. As COO and a PhD trained organic chemist, I take that responsibility very personally, and I'm personally responsible for NBC's environmental health and safety practices. Lastly, as a proud long time resident of the outer sunset in San Francisco, I believe we should encourage more laboratory space in our city. Lab work is necessarily in person and labs create many good jobs, not only for PhD trained scientists, but also for lab technicians and support staff. Startups are the true innovators, developing life-saving technologies by leveraging and translating cutting-edge research. San Francisco's unique confluence of scientists, entrepreneurs, and capital makes it an ideal hub. But our current facilities are at capacity and without the proper lab infrastructure and support, companies will have to go elsewhere. I hope this board will continue to support the growth of biotech in San Francisco. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do for the city and I'm available for any questions. Thank you supervisors John Kevelyn here with Ruben Junison-Rose on behalf of the project sponsor NBC Biolabs. The project on appeal before you is a 70,000 square foot two to three story laboratory building. And like numerous other projects since 2008, the project was issued a general plan exemption tiered off the Eastern neighborhoods EIR. This is available projects that are consistent with the development density under the EIR, unless there is something peculiar about the project that would cause new or more severe impacts than previously analyzed. The project is clearly consistent with the Eastern neighborhoods EIR. Laboratory use was anticipated by the plan and is permitted by zoning. The project is only building 58% of the allowable density at the site, and it's 10 feet shorter than the height limit, and in fact, 25 feet shorter for half of the site. This is exactly the kind of project that the city intended for a GPB issue to when the EIR was drafted. The appellant attempts to point out concerns with several of the individual environmental issues, but both are brief and the planning staff report indicate those concerns are not justified. As this board knows, the bar is high for a sequel appeal when reviewing the GPE. The question is whether the department's findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record. If they are, the GPE should be upheld even if other conclusions could be reached. Secret refers to a local agency's reasoned analysis as long as there is substantial evidence to support it. General arguments, speculation, or other unsupported statements from Pellence aren't sufficient to undermine the GPE. Now, the Pellence first argue that the GPE's project description is flawed because it doesn't state that NBC Biolabs may include biotechnology, doesn't explicitly state that the project won't include life science use, and doesn't say that it will be a biosafety level to facility. However, none of those items are required by CEQA. SQL guidelines only require a description of the site, the project and its surroundings. The guidelines are clear that project descriptions do not need to supply extensive detail, just what's necessary to evaluate and review potential impacts. In fact, the appellans briefs cites the general definition of laboratory use under the planning code, which expressly includes, quote, biotechnology facilities classified by CDC as biosefty level one, two, or three facilities, end quote. Laboratories are broadly defined and evaluated for impacts associated with these features and there's no need for further clarification in the project description. To the degree that there's any questions about the difference between biosafety level 2 or 3 facilities, these are very different physical facilities. The facility that's been designed today cannot be used for biosafety level 3. There are physical components of this building of which if there are questions we can get into more detail But this is not this building can't just be easily used as either biosafety level 2 or biosafety level 3 But I encourage you to ask questions if you have them Secondly the appellant appellant argues that the gpe doesn't properly evaluate air quality shadow and hazardous materials However, the departments findings in each of these areas are supported by substantial evidence. Regarding air quality, appellants have no substantive issue with the department's analysis, but claim staff and properly applied mitigation measure G4, because they essentially didn't copy the mitigation measure from the EIR. This argument is meritless for a number of reasons. The department regularly tailors mitigation measures to a project and updates such measures as times and appropriate. And most importantly, conducting this air quality analysis at the time that the operation commences is in fact a stronger mitigation than at the time of entitlement. As staff said since we will know more about the specific mechanical systems and uses in the building and any nearby residential projects constructed in the interim would be considered at that time. If we were to say that the state mechanical systems and uses in the building, and any nearby residential projects constructed in the interim would be considered at that time. If we care about environmental review, we should welcome this strength in mitigation measure. Appellant does not attempt to provide any evidence as to why the measure is inadequate. Avoid any discussion of the SQL case law clearly allowing updated mitigation measures and simply speculates that it is not adequate. And that doesn't meet the standards for this appeal. Now regarding shadow, appellant claims that the GPE analysis was in ad-equip because it didn't expressly discuss the dog patch arts plaza. But as indicated in the appellant's own letter, the dog patch arts plaza was included in the project's original shadow fan analysis. And a second qualitative analysis was prepared, focused on the potential shadows on the plaza itself. So shadow has been on the plaza has been both mapped throughout the year and discussed in a standalone qualitative report. The appellant spends no time clarifying why this is inadequate, no evidence is even attempted. But in essence, SQL worked the way it was supposed to. The original shadow study was prepared. The appellants raised this issue prior to the Planning Commission hearing and staff asked for additional review prior to that Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission considered that additional analysis and determined that the project was eligible for the GPE based on substantial evidence. So this is exactly how SQL is supposed to work. Finally, appellants argued that both the EN, EIR, and GPA, GPE, fail to properly analyze and mitigate potential impacts from hazardous materials inherent to biotech labs. In reality, the EN, EIR expressly stated that, in addition to the applicable mitigation measures, there are numerous local, state, and federal guidelines that ensure that any uses with hazardous waste do not cause an impact on the environment. As we have cited, there are no less than nine other regulatory programs run by federal state and local agencies that ensure the laboratory use will not result in harmful hazardous material emissions. One example is San Francisco's Mahar program that provides oversight of testing and disposal of any potential hazardous soil excavated during project construction. And such analysis always occurs after SQL review. So this is not uncommon. So there are numerous robust regulatory programs that ensure no impact due to hazardous materials. And finally, I also just want to emphasize the recent SQL a court of appeal decision made earlier this year. It was by a court of appeal, which means it is presidential throughout the state, in Hilltop Group versus County of San Diego, the fourth district court of appeal once again confirmed and actually emphasize the appropriateness of a sequel exemption teared off a previous EIR when there are no unique impacts associated with this project. That is clearly the case here, and while a balance raised concerns, they haven't even attempted to provide evidence of an actual impact. So absent any such evidence provided by the impelan, there's no basis for this Equipial and we respectfully request that you deny the appeal. Thank you. Thank you. We will now entertain public comment for folks in support of the project. Hello. My name is Matt Zunder. I'm a resident of San Francisco. I moved to the city over 10 years ago from the East Coast because I wanted to start a biotech company. And I did. But for most of the last decade, I actually lived in Petrero Hill and commuted every day to Salt San Francisco where my lab was, which was not great. And then the last few years, I've been very fortunate enough to start a company here in San Francisco that's in Petra River Hill in NBC, in one of the NBC buildings, and it's been life-changing. My company makes vaccines for cows, so they burp less, so they emit less methane, so climate change is hopefully mitigated and we can all keep eating ice cream And I get to walk to work every day, which is like the first time in my entire career that I've been able to do that I get to walk to work get to eat out like in my neighborhood I get to like walk to the gym after work And I get to be in an amazing community that NBC provides they also do provide all of the safety guidance that I don't have to think about it. Like, my company is five people. I don't want to think about all the, you know, regulatory overhead. They handle all that for us, which is really valuable as a small company. So I really, you know, I ask you to support expanding this lab space, we can have more of it. So more companies like mine can get started here in San Francisco, and more of my neighbors can, you know, start companies with me. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Board of Supervisors. Excuse me. Good evening, sir. Hi, I'm Mr. Dennis Williams, Jr. Board of Supervisor, Board of Community Later, local micro developer, and head of Plaza Ease Development Advisory Committee. Please, Board of Supervisors, I hope you support NBS BioLabs, NBC BioLabs, excuse me. Political officials should not be allowed to revise definitions that were thoughtfully put in place, especially simply to halt projects in your district. This egregious attempt to ban laboratory use in a UMC zoning is not good policy for the city of San Francisco. Its residents or small micro businesses, 700 Indiana will help a bevy of San Francisco. Its residents or small micro businesses, 700 Indiana will help a baby of San Francisco's brightest creative minds. Only positive things can come from university students, having access to safe technology-based laboratory facilities in a close proximity to their school and their apartments. As a fellow UC graduate, time management for students is everything. San Francisco must get back to being a beacon of light and hope for the rest of the world, especially through medical and healthcare. I wanted to today what supervisor Shaman's motives were a little over a month ago as he introduced such legislation to a halt such a thing, even after a hard work completed by our amazing planning commission. Thank you. I cry foul. Community advocates severely underfunded black small business owners up and down to plurable third street have all pleaded for supervisor Shimanta introduced legislation for but not limited to the inclusion of qualified local micro developers general and subcontractors to joint ventures and limited partnerships with luxury out of state developers. contractors, corporations who are taking massive amounts of San Francisco finances to a respective states and families to no avail. So why play a political game simply because you see maybe some of your own people potentially gain an equal playing field is downright counterproductive. Dewey Land Company, NBC BioLabs, dedication to promoting diversity and supporting SF small businesses within the construction industry as commendable in the lines with our shared values? I specifically want to thank Mr. Douglas Crawford, Mr. Robert at NBC. Thank you, your time is up. Good evening, Board of Supervisors. My name is Dave Fahey. I'm here from supporting UA Local 38 Plumbers and Pipepitters Union of San Francisco. We are here in support of the project at 700 Indiana Street, the Laboratory Project. This project currently has a project labor agreement, which not only provides plenty of work which is desperately needed in the current situation for labor unions, but also provides local higher qualities within the area and all of the scientists and other workforce that would be brought to this project are desperately needed right now with the current state of things along with the surrounding areas which would benefit from a project like this. So we urge you guys to go forward with this project. Good evening everyone. John Doherty, electrical workers, local six in Vice President San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. Here to speak in support of the project and against the appeal. For a number of reasons, number one is that we have a project sponsor that has made a commitment to working people in San Francisco, has made a commitment to a apprenticeship and opportunities that come there from. You know, in local six, we have had probably the worst four-run year, four-year run, excuse me, that we've had in decades, but for the sewer plant being redone in the Southeast section, we probably would be at the lowest hours we have seen in over 50 years. We need projects like this, we need the diversity of industry in San Francisco that a project like this will provide. And we also need to make sure that a message is sent that San Francisco is open for business and that we do encourage innovation and research and all that goes with it. The project, what it is done, does not necessarily provide the types of jobs that we normally represent, but the construction of it does. And the construction of a project like this will lead to further development of goods of stateable careers in San Francisco, both in the trades and in the biosciences. It's important to think of the investments we've made in San Francisco in the eastern neighborhoods. And then lastly, when we look at the appeal, this has been determined by our planning staff who was accused often of not moving fast enough. They moved deliberate. They moved deliberate for a reason. They've reviewed it. They say it's compliant with the Eastern neighborhoods plan, which for those of us that have been around long enough for memory, it took eight years to put together. And the portrayal boosters was a big part of input on that project. So thank you for your time. Good afternoon. I spent a long one. But we're still here. And that's just shows our dedication and support of 700 Indiana. We've been here all day to have an opportunity to speak in favor of the continuous, my name is Demetrius Williams. I'm the president of the San Francisco hyperlocal building, Chase Contractors Collective. And I'm also a plumbing contractor. So when 700 Indiana owners came and talked to the collective, it wasn't more of a support of. So when 700 Indiana owners came and talked to the collective, it wasn't more of a support of, it was more of, we have to get this pass, we have to get involved because it's not just for the community, it's for the residents also, and make sure with so many businesses closing in San Francisco and we have somebody that wanna develop a part of San Francisco, it's just important that we take this measurement and really look at it and say yes, it's time for us to open up the doors of business for San Francisco and get it people opportunity, especially the scientists, a chance to have something affordable in San Francisco for them to have a place to do their, their, their, their, to, to, I mean their to wishes and stuff with their classes with. So I'm just in support of this measurement. I mean, I'm so excited. I hope that the Board of Supervisors also passed this measurement because this is just imperative, not just for the construction part, like John said, but for the residents in the community to move forward with growing and open up the doors for San Francisco business to continue to thrive. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Akala Kuhahara, and I'm here to speak in support of the NBC Biolabs Project at 700 Indiana. I'm a San Franciscouhahara and I'm here to speak in support of the NBC Biolabs Project at 700 Indiana. I'm a San Francisco resident for over 15 years and Chief of Staff at Siren Biotechnology, a startup with a female scientific founder and CEO spun out of UCSF Mission Bay and currently attendant of the existing NBC Biolabs building on Indiana Street. We're working to develop new therapies for devastating forms of brain cancer. Our small team of scientists, nearly all of whom are San Francisco residents, have developed a therapy that has the potential to transform cancer treatments. And we are working hard to advance to our first clinical trial where we'll treat human patients with brain cancer for the first time. NBC Biolabs provides an affordable space for us to operate in San Francisco. If we weren't tenants at NBC, we would be forced to compete with large companies and organizations for the limited and costly lab space in San Francisco as private tenants, or move outside of the city. Instead, NBC tenants are able to focus our financial resources on hiring people from our community to do valuable science. It's important for companies like ours to remain in San Francisco. We attract innovation, create new job opportunities for individuals at all levels, and provide significant support to local businesses in the dog patch. I consistently see colleagues and members of other companiesing local restaurants, bars, and shops. We're considered neighbors who also value the nearby parks and neighborhood safety. For these reasons, I would like to share my strong support for the project at 700 Indiana. Thank you for your consideration and for all you do for the city. Hello, my name is Philippine Alba. I'm a research associate for a biotech startup named deciduous therapeutics. We work out of an NBC biolabs striving to develop immune therapies that will cure age-related diseases. I have called San Francisco my home since I was four years old when my family moved back into the house and my grandfather purchased in the 60s after emigrating from the Philippines. My childhood memories are brighter because the city has served as their backdrop. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I was thrilled to find my role at deciduous, which has both financially allowed me to remain a San Francisco resident and has also given me the chance to expand my professional network within the city. During my nearly three years at deciduous and NBC Biolabs, I have been offered the chance to meet an incredible array of caring, driven, and diverse individuals. As a daughter of immigrants and a woman in STEM, I'm acutely aware of the impact that representation has, not only on the problems that we can solve, but the problems that we can identify. I believe that spaces such as NBC Biolabs fosters an environment in which diversity of thought and background art are amplified, and I celebrate the expansion of such spaces in San Francisco. As a proud resident of this city, pursuing an interest in science, a career in biotech seemed like an obvious consideration for me as I continue to grow professionally and as an individual. I hope to find opportunities that allow me to give back to the community and continue calling San Francisco my home. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Rachel Hattano and I am a San Francisco resident. About six years ago, I graduated with a PhD in bioengineering from UC Merced and was hired as the first non-founding employee at a startup that is curing age-related diseases like pulmonary fibrosis and diabetes. This company was fortunate to call NBC Home for the five and a half years that I spent there and I could see that NBC ethos aligned with my personal values, one of which includes supporting diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in STEM and entrepreneurship. NBC BioLabs mission is to democratize access to essential lab space and support biotech entrepreneurs, regardless of their background. This inclusivity isn't just policy, but a foundational principle that has catalyzed the development of many initiatives and ideas, some of which would struggle to find support elsewhere. This is evidenced by the over 50% of founders across the NBC sites who identify as either women or from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups. This approach not only brought in the scope of research but also enhances the applicability of scientific breakthroughs ensuring the benefits of biotechnology can be accessible and relevant to a wider population. NBC Biolabs has commitment to the community and recognizes the responsibility we all have to promote diversity in STEM. Some of our activities have included donating to programs like the San Francisco Girl School, volunteering at locals, them outreach events, hiring interns from programs that support underrepresented groups and hosting mentorship events for founders and VCs from underrepresented groups. I urge you to support this project so we can continue our progress diversifying the types of voices that are heard in science. Thank you. Good evening Supervisor Walton and Board of Supervisors and staff. My name is Greg Hardiman, life-long resident of San Francisco and a proud union elevator constructors. We are proud to support 700 Indiana. This project and we respectfully urge you to deny the appeal the appeal simply falls Fails to meet the threshold for overturning and should be denied I'd also like to point out UCSF children's hospital is approximately 1300 feet from this project so that circle that we saw I'm kind of confused about that thousand feet because it's you know right next to the hospital as well and the pro pro's project as well design and mixed code compliant and we welcomed the innovation and Investment in the San Francisco's economic recovery. So I urge you to deny the appeal. Thank you very much Good evening. I haven't been able to call you President Walton in a long time. I'm good evening. President Walton and the members of the Board of Supervisors, Rudy Gonzalez with the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council. You've heard from some of my colleagues more of which were here earlier but had to go to attend to family and other work commitments. But I just wanted to note, you know, there's a narrative around good jobs, a narrative around equity and inclusion, STEM, innovation. Those are all really compelling narratives. And I would love to think that that could alone carry the day. But the fact is that you have a very specific and actually narrow scope that's before you today. And with all due respect to community who've put forward, I think, a well-intentioned appeal, it falls short. It fails to provide you the substantive evidence that you need and, frankly, must demonstrate in the record tonight to uphold their appeal. And so for that reason, I would urge you respectfully to deny the appeal. It doesn't mean the conversations over, though. And I do want to respectfully call out another person mentioned in their comment about another ordinance that's out there. I think we need to continue to have thoughtful conversation around that because I think community concerns need to be heard, they need to be registered. And I found this particular developer to be willing to have those conversations. They've certainly honored those commitments in South San Francisco and in other places where they've taken their business I also think that they are an existing neighbor. I went out to the site this weekend And just kind of walked around and took it in and gosh I hope they finished the park renovations sooner than later But what I did notice is you know NBC and Johnson and Johnson are already neighbors They're already part of this community. They're already as a precedent in this particular zone, in this particular neighborhood, because they are on Indiana. And if you were to stand there at the park, you could look to your left on the other side of the street and see the existing NBC facility. And then you could look across at this pretty desolate parking lot and old tin structure and realize we have real potential here. But on the merits, on the merits, I think, respectfully urge you to deny the appeal tonight. We can keep the conversation. Thank you, Mr. Secretary Treasurer. Good evening supervisors. Wow, all the scientists and trade folks are hard to follow. They've said everything. My name is Christie Sharilla and I'm the Bay Area Policy Manager for Biocom, California. Biocom is the state's oldest and largest trade association for the life sciences with over 1,800 members statewide and about 600 of those up here in the Bay Area. Biocom's 2024 Economic Impact Report, which came out a few months ago, revealed that the life science sector generates over $8 billion of total economic output just in San Francisco. This includes over 25,000 jobs not only directly in, but also supported by the sector. Like those of the union and trades members you've heard from today, these jobs not only bolster to local economy but contribute to a robust tax base that supports essential city services and infrastructure. The jobs that the labs often require onsite work and cannot be done remotely and many of the employees of these labs are residents of San Francisco living and working within the city. As a matter of fact there are many more scientists here waiting to give their public comment, but they had to leave because of time constraints as well. They're integral members of our community who contribute to the vibrancy and diversity of our city. Projects like 700 Indiana Street are exactly what we need to stimulate job creation and support sustainable development in our city, while also encouraging our city's long tradition of researching and discovering groundbreaking technologies. I urge you to consider the positive impact this project will have and I support its advancement. Thank you all for your time. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on behalf of the public comment and opposition to the appeal on behalf of the support of the project. Right? So you have no speakers, public comment on this portion of the hearing is now closed. We do have now three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellate. Thank you, supervisors. We have to start by admitting that, yes, there's going to be a lot of good done in a bioscience incubator. That's not the point of why we're here. There's not a secret code or a planning code or any other code that distinguishes between good uses and bad uses that just evaluates the uses agnostically. And our argument today is that the planning department did not study the issues necessary in order for it to be able to tear itself off of the plan EIR and to make the findings it made in the general plan evaluation with respect to the shadows. We understand that a memo that analyzed the shadows on the dog patch art's plaza was created. It stated the same day as the commission hearing, the GPs out before, the conclusion was made before the analysis was provided. And that means that it was not analyzed when that analysis was made. With respect to the mitigations for air quality, if I could have the overhead please. From the planning department's own memo, you see the differences and you see that in the plan exemption it says that you'll make a study prior to the approval action. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't do it afterwards too to make sure that you're following the law. That means that as a first step you're going to do an analysis to identify sensitive uses prior to the entitlements of the building when you can perhaps do more about the types of toxic air contaminants that might be floating around out there. Compare this to the noise issue where they did do a study beforehand, even though the exact machinery won't be in place, and even though they'll do more studies afterwards. They did a study beforehand because that was what was required by the Plan EIR. They did not do it in this case. With respect to hazardous materials, the Plan EIR, they did not do it in this case. With respect to hazardous materials, the Plan EIR basically punts. It talks about construction issues like the moheronins and things that are already on site, but it doesn't cover operations. What the Plan EIR says is they have to follow law. We know that already. And what it says is that there'll be new regulations from the Bio-Science report that was implemented in 2005. Nothing ever came of that. We're in the same place. There's nothing about what the Planning Department can do with relation to built environment that would help mitigate the hazardous material component of this. It's like a game of hide the ball. And you've heard it a little bit more from the project sponsor. They'll say, we'll know more later. We'll know more later. But we need to know enough at the time of the project entitlement for us to be able to use a secret exemption. And we're not saying that this can't be fixed, and this can't be remedied in that this project can't go forward in some form in the future. But it can't go forward unless it's done appropriately right now and our argument is as that it hasn't thank you Thank you so much hearing from all parties We will now close this hearing Colleagues anyone have any questions any statements if not First thing I do want to state, obviously this is an important matter. And we take our sequel appeals serious. And I really do think that concerns raised here today on behalf of residents are definitely valid. I don't think planning or the sponsor convinced us that the uses on the site won't cause harm to the area or that that was even analyzed and study. But I do want to be clear that I fully support development at the site. Let me say that again I fully support development at this site. But most certainly the environmental impacts have not completely been studied. at this site. But most certainly, the environmental impacts have not completely been studied. I also know that whatever was to happen at this site will provide jobs for labor. And of course, we would make sure that our building construction trades members had the opportunity to have these quality jobs. In fact, you probably won't find another human being with a better track record with labor than me. And I do just wanna say that when people come to the Chamber to speak on detailed projects, they should know what they're talking about and they should know my track record before they just get up there and speak and say anything. But with that said, beyond these environmental concerns, the project is inconsistent with the city's general plan. It proposes life science use, which is explicitly prohibited in the urban mixed-use zoning district. Additionally, the project fails to align with the goals outlined in the housing element and the Eastern neighborhoods area plan. These plans were obviously carefully developed to address our city's needs for housing and to preserve character and integrity of our neighborhoods. This project unfortunately, falls short on both fronts. And I could talk about how the project doesn't fit in the area and all the other great uses and opportunities in the housing element and how we are way behind and reaching our goals and housing. But the fact is there are true environmental concerns around hazards, around shadow and around air quality. And I know these appeals are not pretty all the time and it's definitely something that I don't enjoy about the job, but I do something that I don't enjoy about the job. But I do think that we are at a place where we need to support the appeal and therefore I would like to table item 23 and approve items 24 and 25 and I make a motion to do that is there a second. Seconded by a supervisor Ronan. All right, on that motion, I'm just making sure I don't see any comments by anyone before we go forward to vote. Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call vote on that? On the motion to table item 23 and approve items 24 and 25, supervisor Chan. Chan, novisor Dorsey. Dorsey, no, Supervisor Angardio. Angardio, no, Supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman, no, Supervisor Melgar. No, Supervisor Preston. No. Preston, no, Supervisor Ronan. Ronan I, Supervisor Safa Yi. Safa Yi, no supervisor Stephanie. Stephanie, no and supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. There are two eyes and nine nose with supervisors, excuse me there are eight. There are eight nose. With supervisors Ronan and Walton voting aye. Thank you by a vote of 8-2 motion fails. Supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, President Walton. I want to express my gratitude to the parties today and to everybody who participated in the process, realizing it was long afternoon that became an evening. I mean, hearing the arguments this evening and reviewing the documents, I'm going to be talking about the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the last two months of the Seconded by supervisor Mellgar. Madam Clerk on the motion. That's a motion to approve item 23, supervisor Dorsey, and table items 24 and 25. On that motion, supervisor Chan. Chan I, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey I, supervisor and guardio. And guardio I, supervisor Mandelman. Mandelman I, supervisor Melgar. Melgar I, supervisor and guardian. And guardian, aye, supervisor, mandelman. Mandelman, aye, supervisor, Melgar. Melgar, aye, supervisor, Preston. Aye. Preston, aye, supervisor, Ronan. Ronan, aye, supervisor, Safa Yi. Safa Yi, aye, supervisor, Stephanie. Stephanie, aye, and supervisor, Walton. No. Walton, no. There are nine eyes and one no with supervisor Walton voting no. Thank you. Motion to approve item 23. Carries. Thank you so much to the public for sticking around and staying this late. We're apologized for the time that we started the appeal. Madam Clerk, we are now at roll call for introductions. Thank you, Mr. President. First up, to introduce new businesses, Supervisor Chan. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, today I'm introducing a resolution to urge Dr. Wayne's superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District to reevaluate his plan to close or merge San Francisco schools. After announcing the Resources Al resources alignment initiative last August to respond to issues facing the district. The superintendent made clear that this plan would include school closures. There has been little to no information shared with family, students, or community partners of what this plan would intel or the evaluation criteria. And now the announcement has been delayed by another month without any further transparency. The school district has been plagued by with budgetary problems, including investing over $34 million in the failed payroll system that left our educators and school staff without paychecks and health care. It has now been abandoned for a new $5.4 million system. Instead of closing schools, the district should focus on fixing this disaster of a payroll system, work with the California Department of Education to develop an in-depth benefits and cost analysis, benefits and cost saving analysis, and to pass their proposed $790 million bond this November. I appreciate the San Francisco Board of Education's, their end their commitments to work with the superintendent to find a path forward after the emergency meeting last Sunday, on Sunday, and urge them that they both continue to work with all our school stakeholders to explore all options before considering school closures and the rest I submit. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Chan the rest I submit. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Chan, supervisor Dorsey. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, I am today submitting a legislative drafting request that is informed by feedback I have received from constituents and members of the recovery community in the context of recovery housing legislation that I am co-sponsoring with Supervisor Rafael Madman. As it addresses a discreet issue, however, and is potentially larger in scope, I believe this request appropriately seeks separate legislation. What I'm requesting is a proposed ordinance that would require a clear and factually accurate notification to residents of permanent support of housing in San Francisco about drug-related policies and lease provisions governing substance use in PSH communities. I am also asking that this include a signed acknowledgement of understanding by residents and that it be linguistically appropriate and fully comply with the language access ordinance. Now this legislation would also apply to drug-free or recovery PSH options assuming we ultimately adopt those. And I hope we do. But the issue that was elevated to my attention more recently is among current PSH residents involves drug tolerant policies of our current state housing first provisions of the California welfare and institutions code. Those rules apply only to state-funded PSH and they require that tenant selection and screening promote accepting applicants regardless of their sobriety or use of substances, that lease provisions in which drug use without other lease provisions is not a reason for eviction, and that supportive services recognize drug and alcohol use and addiction as part of tenant's lives. As many of you know, Assemblymember Matt Haney has been a champion at the state level to expand on these provisions to allow for drug free and recovery-oriented PSH options. His AB 2479 legislation would have brought state housing first policies into alignment with federal housing first recommendations. The issue that has emerged locally, however, is that some members of the recovery community who are PSH residents report not being adequately informed about drug tolerant policies. Now, those of us in the policy making realm can acclimate to terms of art like housing first and traditional PSH and harm reduction without fully appreciating sometimes that these euphemisms hold no intuitive or intrinsic meeting meaning to those we serve. Particularly for residents struggling with substance use disorders, there is real fear when they unexpectedly find themselves in a drug tolerant environment. These are situations that can have for some folks sobriety and dangering and perhaps even life threatening implications. The fears are also not speculative. A Chronicle 2022 story found and I quote that San Francisco's supportive housing SROs have been the site of at least 16% of fatal overdoses citywide though the building's house less than 1% of the population. PSH residents deserve clear, accurate information, rather than misleading euphemisms about drug use policies where they reside, requiring notifications in appropriate languages to clarify and to clearly inform PSH residents about drug tolerant policies is a needed step. I hope to earn your support for it and the rest I submit. Thank you, supervisor Dorsey, supervisor Rengardio. Submit, thank you, supervisor Mandelman. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I have a resolution today and two in memorial. The resolution declares October as the October 2024 as the first San Francisco stairway month in the city and county of San Francisco Since 1984 when Ada Bakalinsky first published her now legendary guidebook stairway walks in San Francisco and Actually long before that public staircases have held a special place in the hearts and minds of San Francisco's in the four decades and eight versions of that Guidebook that have come since the love love for our city's special stairways has only increased. In 2004, then Mayor Gavin Newsom declared the first San Francisco stairway day. In 2005, Moraga Street, between 15th and 16th avenues, became the city's first tiled staircase, depicting a colorful sea-to-sky mosaic, replete with a sun, moon, river flowers, and lots of legacy tiles representing the hard work and generosity of the many neighbors and organizations that brought the stairway to life. This tile staircase, like many that have been completed in the city since then, was designed and brought to life by artist Eileen Barr and call it Croucher, working with community volunteers. In October, San Francisco will get another New Tiled staircase, this one in Glen Park at the end of Burnside Avenue, a space that is already adorned by a mural depicting the natural and human history of Glen Park and the Glen Canyon. After a long meandering and frankly painful journey through our city's regulatory approval process. That's in quotes. And largely because of the persistent dog-ed determined community effort led by the unstoppable and relentless Renee burger, tiles will be installed beginning next week. With the impending completion of the Burnside Stairs, the many cross-town trail-themed events of Crosstober, and the best weather of the year coming on us, it seemed a perfect time to celebrate the city's stairways and encourage residents and visitors to get out and enjoy them. Over 900 public staircases adorn the hills and valleys of San Francisco, connecting streets, parks and neighborhoods, summer tiled, summer painted, summer creatively landscaped. These stairways lend a fairytale feeling to the hills and valleys of our city, each pathway of portal to spectacular vistas, a hidden garden or swing set, or a previously unfamiliar street or neighborhood, and a feeling of having discovered something magical. Not only is each staircase a means of travel and discovery, but they can also become low-sci of community, whether through beautification and landscaping projects, neighborhood clean updates, group workout events, or chance encounters of strangers passing on the way. So this October, San Francisco's get out and discover the stairways in your neighborhood and all of that town. There will be events around San Francisco, including Tile, staircase walks, book launches, how to tile a staircase session with the Department of Public Works, and much, much more. Check out the Parks and Liances blog and social media for the latest updates. I want to thank especially people who are bringing stairway month to life around the city and that includes Renee Berger, Burnside Murrow Plus and the Glen Park community. Savannah, Sholan, Madeline Johns and the Parks Alliance, Logan Hain, Carla Short, Public Works and many other fine folks in that department. And I also want to thank my legislative aid Henry Druff for all of his work bringing the Burnside Saga to a happy conclusion. And on this resolution, I want to thank my co-sponsors, supervisors Melgar, Paschim Stefani, and Gardio Dorsey Chan and Ronan. The first and memorial I have is for Ed Donnelly, who passed away on July 20th at his home in Glen Park. He was 65 years old. Ed was a dedicated and beloved city employee who worked at the Department of Building Inspection for 18 years before his retirement in June. After many years as an independent contractor, he joined DBI and handled complaints in the Building Inspection division before moving to field inspections. In 2016, Ed took over as the disaster preparedness coordinator in which role he worked to ensure that the department was equipped to handle any potential emergency. He was later promoted to senior building inspector handling complicated programs and projects. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, he was deployed to the emergency operation center where he assisted with a city's response to the crisis. Ed took pride in his membership in teamsters local 8.56 as well as the building inspectorate association of San Francisco. In 2013 Ed became chair of the BIA, BIA SF representing the association and all employer contract negotiations and he doodily served in that role until 2020. His colleagues at DBI describe Ed as a reliable friend and a team player they could count on. Rest in peace Ed Donnelly may your memory be a blessing. Secondly I'm asking as I mentioned I would do during the Noey Walks Commendation that we I'm asking that we join a journey today's meeting in memory of Rudy Saddleberger who passed away this summer at the age of 100. Born and raised south of market, Rudy graduated from Mission High School and served in the Army in World War II. He read water meters for the city before founding a successful metal products firm in Soma. And for the last 60 plus years, he was an active and involved in Noe Valley and living that entire time in a home near 22nd in Sanchez. Friends and family describe Rudy and his wife of 61 years Mary as generous, open-hearted, infinitely kind people. And the guest bedroom in their Noe Valley home was rarely empty. Rudy was a remarkable athlete through his entire life. He was a champion handball player, winning an amazing 13 national titles. He played the sport at the South End Rowan Club even into the final decades of his life. And he strongly supported the women who pushed the club to let them in in 1977. Aside from handball, Rudy Ran-Marathon swam the escape from Alcatraz and ran the double dipsy race for Mill Valley Distance in Beach and Back. Part of the secret of his longevity may have been a frugal diet that avoided meat and sugar but allowed an occasional glass of wine. In his later years he slowed down taking up gardening with Mary, but he never stopped walking or learning new things. In his late 90s he became a fixture of no-e-walks, a popular weekly stroll that I described earlier. He picked up Pickleball well into his tenth decade and even into the last days of his life, Rudy made regular trips to the library to check out nonfiction books to better understand as many different perspectives as possible. Rudy was described as a serially open-minded person and he did more than age gracefully. He thrived all the way until his death. He was also unfailingly modest. Despite starting a business that's now in its third generation, working two jobs when he was starting up, despite making friends everywhere he met, despite trying new things this whole life, and despite all of his accomplishments, Rudy's local fame confused him. People would lean out of cars to wave and say hello. The mirror and I showed up at his 100th birthday celebration. And he said, I don't want to be famous just because I'm the old guy. Of course, Rudy was famous and beloved because he was wonderful in a model that had remained physically, mentally, and socially engaged. Even as we age, rest in peace, Rudy Saddleberger, may your memory be of blessing as it is and has been an inspiration. And the rest I submit. Thank you, supervisor Mandelman. Supervisor Melgar. Submit, thank you, supervisor Preston. Not present in the chamber, supervisor Ronan. Submit, thank you, Supervisor Safaie. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I just have one thing to introduce today. Colleagues, I am introducing a hearing request and also a motion scheduling for next week that we will sit as a committee of the whole regarding some of the information that's just come out extremely, extremely disturbing the San Francisco Unified School District. We have heard multiple reports that $20 million has gone unaccounted for at the school district with special education funding. And because of that, positions have not been able to be hired. Children and families are not being served. And this is a matter of crisis. This is putting families in major, major disarray. It's causing a lot of upheaval. And unfortunately, we need to call the superintendent. We started some of the conversation with Supervisor Walton today with DCYF, but we'd like to have them come in along with all of the different agencies now that have been asked by the mayor to be part of this recovery team. Also want to get to the bottom of the $8.4 million that has been accessed from the student success fund was not part of its original intent to hire consultants and others, but actually as we talked about today, if you put toward helping and enhancing the educational environment in the school district. So motion will be introduced along with the hearing. We will sit and I will ask colleagues to support sitting as a committee of the whole next week so we can move on this in an urgent manner so we can get to the bottom of some of these questions. I do that in support with President Peskin. He's a co-sponsor on this as well and I know I've talked to some of the other colleagues that have expressed their support. So if we can move forward that next week, I know every single one of us has been asked questions about things that are happening with schools within our own district, and it's caused a lot of upheaval and concern, particularly as it relates to delaying the announcement on the school closures, and thank you Supervisor Chan for introducing that information today. And with that, the rest I submit. Thank you, supervisor Safa, IE, supervisor Stephanie. Submit, thank you, Mr. President, supervisor Walton. Thank you so much, roll call is now over. I also like to entertain a motion to excuse supervisor Preston for the rest of this meeting. Seconded by supervisor Melgar, Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? An motion made to excuse supervisor Preston for the remainder of the meeting, supervisor Chan. Chan, aye, supervisor Dorsey. Dorsey, aye, supervisor and cardio. And cardio, aye, supervisor Mandelman. Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor and Gardeo? And Gardeo, aye. Supervisor Mandelman? Aye. Mandelman, aye. Supervisor Melgar? Aye. Melgar, aye. Supervisor Preston is absent. Supervisor Ronan? Aye. Ronan, aye. Supervisor Safaigee? Aye. Safaigee, aye. Supervisor Stephanie? Stephanie, aye and supervisor Walton. Aye. Walton, aye. There are nine, aye. Motion to excuse supervisor Preston is passed. Madam Clerk, would you please call our for adoption without committee reference? We'll have to take public comment, Mr. President, on general matters. Oh, my apologies. My apologies to the public. We are now at public comment. Please line up on your right hand side of the chamber along the curtains. You can speak to items 28 through 32 up for adoption without considered by a committee or other general matters. We're setting the timer for two minutes. Welcome, Mayor for Speaker. Hello, this today I am the public. You're just gonna get like a shitty version of this because it's been so long. So my name's Liam McEver, I live in D6. Thanks to the Mission Local and Phoenix Project. Their latest article together SF wants to remake City Hall, Internal Docs Show, and that's just the beginning. The public is starting to get on the same page about together SF being a political propaganda and action arm of billionaire Michael Moritz. I'm wondering will the public finally start talking about those supervisors who have been pushing together SF slash the billionaire's messaging and policies on us. Related this, there's also this weird odd overlap between the Salvation Army Recovery employees and proponents, some of them, with some very vocal together SF Associates and Proponents, which also raises a red flag for me like why is they're this overlap? So one example of someone who has this kind of overlap is my supervisor of D6. I've spoken about that ad nauseam. Another is a Tom Wolf founder of the Pacific Alliance for Prevention and Recovery Non-Profit, spoken about that ad nauseam, just a side note. He was laughing online on Elon Musk's Twitter ex, whatever, about non-binary people overdosing. Sure, yeah, great person to team up with. And the third example of someone who with this weird overlap is the 11 supervisor, Asha Safayee, and you wouldn't know it if you only paid attention to his mayoral campaign, but before his announcement. Let's refrain from talking directly at Supervisor and talk to the whole body, please. Okay. Can I say D11? You can continue with your public comment. Okay. So before his announcement, he was very much in step with my supervisor on together SF type pulse, policies, messaging. And this particular person may be more well-rounded than his laser-focused moderates like my supervisor but make no mistake he's just as eager and amplifying that shit. Thank you for your comments. Any other speakers? Mr. President. Seeing no more public comment, public comment is now closed. Now Madam Clerk can we go to the four adoption without committee reference calendar? Items 28 through 32 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee. A unanimous vote is required for adoption on a resolution on first reading today. Alternatively, a member may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee. Thank you, supervisor Stephanie. Thank you, I'd like to pull items number 29 and 30 and add my name as a co-sponsor to 31. 29 and 30. Thank you so much. Seeing no one else on the roster, Madam Clerk, we will go ahead, same house, same call, we're at items 28, 31 and 32. Madam Clerk, please call item number 29. Item 29, this is a resolution to declare September 27th, 2014, as St. Vincent de Paul School Day in the city and county of San Francisco and commemoration of the school's 100th anniversary. So we're just definitely. Thank you, President Wong. Colleagues, this resolution decidates Friday, September 27th, 2024 as Saint-Visit de Paul School Day in the city and county of San Francisco in honor of the school's centennial celebration. Since 1924, Saint-Visit de Paul School has been a cornerstone of education, faith, and community in our city. For 100 years, the Saint-Visit de Paul School has faithfully upheld its mission by offering a holistic education that nurtures the spiritual, academic, social, and physical development of its students. As a mother of two Viking alumni, I've seen firsthand the impact of this incredible institution on students, families, and the broader community. Since its founding in 1924, St. Vizitipal School has continuously evolved as curriculum and teaching methods to embrace experiential, innovative, and bold approaches to learning, promoting excellence in preparing students to become engaged global citizens who value diversity. St. Vizitipal School has made a lasting positive impact on the San Francisco community by instilling values of empathy, generosity, and service in its students, encouraging them to participate in initiatives that support those in need and contribute to the common good. A special thank you goes to Principal Margarit Peney, Father Art, Father Arturo O'Bono, SVDP's Centennial Campaign Lead, Selene Curran, Development Directoruro Bono, SVDP's Centennial Campaign Lead, Selene Curran, Development Director Brenda Barkley, and the entire school community for their dedication to our student success. St. Vincent de Paul School Day is a tribute to the educators, families, and students who have contributed to this vibrant learning environment over the past century. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor Stephanie. And Madam Clerk, would you please call item number 30? Item 30. Item 30. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Stephanie. For item 29, I think, and I believe we can take that item, same house, same call without objection. Item 29 passes. My apologies, item number 30. Item 30, this is a resolution to urge the Secretary of the Navy to Christian ship as the USS Diane Feinstein commemorating senator Feinstein's enduring contributions to San Francisco, the state of California and the United States. Thank you and before I call on Supervisor Stephanie. Supervisor Stephanie does request privilege of the floor be granted to Miss Alain Mariano, who is Senator Feinstein's granddaughter after she speaks. And so if we don't have any objection, we will take that request, same house, same call. With that, Supervisor Stephanie. Thank you, President Walton. Colleagues, this is a resolution urging the Secretary of the Navy to Kristen Aship as a USS Diane Feinstein. I'd like to thank my colleague, Supervisor Mandelman, for his support of this resolution and for recognizing the profound legacy of Senator Feinstein who he lost approximately one year ago today. Senator Diane Feinstein was a trailblazer, not just for women in politics, but for anyone seeking to serve their community with courage and conviction. As the first woman to service mayor of San Francisco, she redefined leadership, shattering barriers and creating a more inclusive path forward for future generations. Senator Feinstein embodied true leadership, skillfully balancing strength with compassion and effectiveness with grace. For me personally she was more than a mentor. She embodied the ideals we should all strive for in public service. While Senator Feinstein left an indelible mark on many aspects of our local and federal government, her connection to the U.S. Navy was particularly profound and personal. After the tragedies of 1978, Senator Feinstein not only got his San Francisco through a period of healing, but also worked tirelessly to strengthen the city's historic bond with the Navy. Through her vision and diligence, Fleet Week was revived. A tradition that continues to honor the brave men and women of our naval forces to this day. Senator Feinstein's commitment to national security was unparalleled, from her work on advancing gun violence prevention to her vigilant defense of civil liberties. Naming a U.S. Navy ship, after her, would be a bidding recognition of her contributions to the nation's defense and the lives she has touched. I would like to urge Secretary Del Toro to honor this resolution by christening a ship as the USS Diane Feinstein. And in so doing, we ensure her legacy lives on both in her contributions to national security and in her steadfast dedication to public service. Colleagues, I hope you'll join me in honoring Senator Feistine's remarkable legacy, and with that, I would like to turn it over to Senator Feistine's granddaughter, Ms. Eileen Mariano. Thank you so much. Good evening, Supervisor Walton and members of the board. I will be very brief, because I know it's late, but I'm Eileen Mariano, and I'm here on my personal capacity just to speak a little bit about my grandmother and the admiration that she had for the Navy throughout her entire career. So she herself was a sailor when she was younger. She would sail in the bay and she really loved being on the water. And as supervisor Stephanie mentioned, as Mayor, she brought Fleet Week to San Francisco and she really wanted to show the Navy that they were welcome here in our city. She also bravely rode in a blue angel once or twice. She was proud of that for her whole life and she told me that story at least a dozen times. And as Senator, you know, she served as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee where her reverence for the Navy only grew. She was also one of the co-sponsors of the U.S. NS Harvey Milk. So all in all, she was a proud public servant and supporter of the Navy until the day that she died. And, you know, having this ship named after her would have meant the world to her, she really would have been honored. I, Supervisor Stephanie also mentioned this, but this is notable timing because she passed away a year ago this weekend. So this is just a really lovely way to remember her on the anniversary of her passing. So thank you, Supervisor Stephanie, for introducing this item. It really means a lot to me and to my family. And thank you to the members of the board for their consideration. Thank you, Ms. Mariano. Supervisor Melgar. I just wanted to be added as a co-sponsor, Ms. Mariano. Supervisor Melgar. I just wanted to be added as a co-sponsor, please. Got it. Supervisor Sappaii. Please add me as a co-sponsor as well, please. Supervisor Dorsey. I'd like to be a co-sponsor as well. Thank you. Supervisor Ronan. Inspired by Ms. Mariano, please add me as a co-sponsor. That was so sweet. Thank you. Thank you. And Madam Clerk, please add me as a co-sponsor as well. Noted. And without objection, we would take item number 30, without objection. Madam Clerk, do we have any memorians? Yes, Mr. President. Today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on behalf of supervisor Mandelman for the late Mr. Rudy, Saddleberger and Mr. Ed Donnelly on behalf of supervisor Preston for the late Mr. Alireza Garavi. Thank you Madam Clerk. Do we have any more business before us? That concludes our business for today. Thank you everyone. We are adjourned. Thank you Madam Clerk. Do we have any more business before us? That concludes our business for today. Thank you everyone. We are adjourned. Thank you. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪