we have not begun to refurbish the buildings. our first priority has been to find our ship repair operator then we'll know which buildings we have to reposition and come to you to talk through different requests for proposal processes etc., where we can find a development partner for the buildings. >> i did gloss over, but the fact that those buildings are optional, so they could propose, for example building 611 is. >> but the -- there would be a reduced footprint. >> correct. >> how much have we invested so far and we're offering more in this rfp, right? >> we've made several investments in the facility to date. we've been working on separating the electrical. we've done building demolition

and we also are going to repair the high water platform? >> no, we're not. >> we need to get you a budget showing total spent to date. we need to pull that information and provide it to you rather than give you an off-the-cuff figure. but we have that information. >> facility reappraiser like direct forbes said, there is also the cost of keeping the facility stable with. >> but the rfp is going to commit more port funding, 3.5 million? >> that is an on-going project. that's the electri electrificatn project. >> how much am i going to count on the port giving me more money? >> we'll are dredge under dry drok 2. 2. -- dry dock 2. that's huge.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'm mike martin, real estate. so, i think the big take away we took from the first rfp is that the value of the potential restarting of the operation was not enough to defray all the expenses that come with restarting the operation. one of the things we heard, if we have to pay for the buildings too, there are not enough dollars out of ship repair to allow us. what we're structuring this rfp to do is so say what are other costs that we as a port can perform as a cost effective rate such as using the dredge program to take that cost off of the operator and have them bid back to us as to what it means for the operation. our goal is not to offer a subsidy so much as to get operators thinking creatively about can we get ship repair back here and hopefully in a competitive environment when they're each looking over their

shoulder and saying we don't want to lose this because we're asking too much. hopefully use the competitive process to limit what they ask for. what we heard was putting out what we had was not generating the from to create the competitive process. i think we'll evaluate the rfp response so say what kind of support do we need and is that worth it to us to restart the ship operation? >> in this rfp, we are pea not designate anything minimum rent? or what are we doing in financial terms? >> we're suggesting they propose the minimum rent. we have a term of 10 years that we propose. the answer is no, we're expecting that they will propose the minimum rent. >> and i don't know i'm not sure i remember if there was anything else beside a base rent? was there some sort of sharing

arrangement? >> the first rfp they could propose a participation rent. >> commissioner is asking about b.a.e. >> that was the participation rent was 3.2%, i believe. 3.2%. excuse me. >> okay. >> over and above. >> we're allowing the bidder in this case to suggest any financial terms then we'll evaluate that accordingly. >> that's correct. >> okay. then what as is our contingency plan if the bidder comes back with something that is not acceptable? >> we'll evaluate those and come back to you and talk through the tradeoffs of moving forward or repositioning the property in a different manner. so we're hopeful that we can find a ship repair operator who can make a go of the shipyard

and bring ship repair back and grow the business and generate revenue for the port over time. we also understand that we're going to present with you the policy tradeoff of potentially making port investment in the facility and contributing to support that business and see if that is something we would like to do. if not, we'll start working on plan b. as i said, we've been focusing on bringing ship repair back and giving it the best try possible. we went out with rfp1 here. we're trying to provide options that will improve the economics of the facility to bring in more interest. and we're hopeful we're able to do so. >> i think nobody would disagree with the purpose and hopefully the objective to see whether we can. i think it's very up in the air since we tried with a failed situation.

and an rfp that did not pan out. this would be attempt number three at this point. we have to be prepared and hopefully you're preparing a contingency plan so we don't do this in sequence, we should be doing something in parallel. you should be preparing a contingency plan in parallel. >> pres. brandon: commissioner katz. >> l. katz: thank you. thanks for your presentation. a couple of questions i had in terms of the smaller footprint. so is that leaving all of the buildings as optional? looking at appendix a virs a1? >> not all of them. -- a versus a1? >> not all of them. here we go.

>> l. katz: and then so previously they would have been responsible for six, the one that is half over the water? >> building 6. this is a demo. this is building 111. yeah. >> but under our prior rfp, that would have included taking responsibility for building 6? >> the prior was -- building 6 was optional too. building 111 was optional. >> in our prior rfp1, both the buildings were optional. i thought it was clearly stated, the responders came in as if it

was their obligation. this one we're clarifying the expansion option if they're at o take on the additional facilities. >> that's what i was trying to get at. what changes we made versus i guess more of a clarification. >> more clarification. we have some nice pretty pick pictures that demonstrate what is optional and what is not. >> any other sweeteners for prospective bidders? >> being a tenant in the port of san francisco. >> the asset trance per. >> the asset transfer -- the asset transfer. >> the proposal could be dry dock 2. it has to say in san francisco, it would be a 10-year transfer over a period of time where after 10 years they own it. they could use it as an asset to get a loan, a mortgage.

>> then have we got a sense of who the potential bidders might be? is vigor interested in coming back? >> vigor is very aggressive. and bay ship and lot, and mayor island. >> now we're going to cast a wider net? i'm curious why we didn't do that a first time. >> more bait on the hook, if you will. we were just in a -- we went too quickly, i believe. we just looked at who are the usual suspects to send this to. i think at this point, we've, again, casting this wider net of other -- you know, other entities that may be interested in the facility. >> but they'd still be doing ship building. >> that's the goal.

>> pres. brandon: commissioner adams. >> v.p. adams: i support you, staff, 100%. my grandmother wit would say, ar kancan't move in neutral. i'm going to support this, but my reservations is that we kicked this can down this road. we keep doing the same thing and getting the same results. i don't know of our history, the shipyard has come and gone, but i'm willing to try one more thyme. vigor i know well. they play games. i kind of like -- i'm looking for a backup plan. i'll support this one more time. but we'll get to a point, we have to have a painful discussion and we have to move forward. i have to ask you where is larry mazole in the unions. what going on with the city?

different wages. there are a lot of variables there. >> i can answer that question. mr. mazola is a lead of the metal trades which is 13 bargaining units all of which had employees at the shipyard. he's been incredibly helpful to port staff as has the entire council of the bay city metal trades. they understand, like you vice president adams, that the economics changed to the shipyard. we've met with them several times and we kept them abreast of where we are. and they'd love to see ship repair return to san francisco. they have labor force to support ship repair in san francisco. they're hoping that this second rfp will produce different results. i will say while it feels like we might be doing the same thing again and again, we are a not doing the same thing. this is a different offering and

it is bound by what we learned from the respondents to rpf1 that we got really good information from that process about why this wasn't working. and what jeff mentioned about the ability to even get a loan to repair the dry dock, that is an important piece of a good financial plan for an operator. right now we own the docks. we own the yard. it's difficult for an operator to get a loan on something they don't own. that's just one example of something we learned. we believe we wouldn't ask you to do this again if we felt there was no possibility of success. so we don't -- we feel this may yield a different result. so we want to give it another try. but labor has been incredibly supportive of us and our efforts as well as had eyes wide open with us about what we're facing in terms of obstacles. >> jeff, you said vigor might be interested again.

what in your mind, i mean, in the team's mind, what do you think is the hangup? >> i think you have some deferred maintenance that is an issue with them. the one thing we've learnedded is the profit margin in the ship repair business. you if they have to invest into the facility, that cuts into their profit margin. i think when we had met with them, the team raised the issue about asset transfers. they perked up. thoofs something you could tell they were interested in -- that was something you could tell they were interested in. if you had a die dock 2 over a 10 ---dry dock 2, over a 10-year period if they could own a percentage, they could get a loan on that. >> i know when you guys are back

in washington next week, when you talk to the different politicians about this issue, whether it's fine stei feinsteis or whoever, if we can get any contracts, i mean, we have to get work, right? whether it's the army corps or coast guard, we need them to be saying we need to get some work in san francisco so we can fill the place up. we can get somebody in there, but it may take a while a whiler them. i'm frustrated by this. i now you have to keep doing it, i'll support it, but see the approach. i hope next time vigor comes they don't send the starbucks guy. if they're serious, they sent a sales guy that know what is he's talking about and talk about flying people in and out.

necessary not the culture of san francisco. they're serious. the c.e.o. would show up and make a presentation to this commission, they deserve that kind of respect and so does the port director and staff and citizens of san francisco. >> thank you. >> pres. brandon: any other questions or comments? jeff, thank you so much for the report. and i'm hoping that this time we do get different results and that we are able to make this happen. thank you and the whole team. >> we are a -- we're optimist particular. >> yes. >> pres. brandon: all those in favor? any opposed? resolution 18 passed. >> item 10, new business. >> pres. brandon: any new business? owany public comment on new business? any new business? no new business. can i have a motion to adjourn?

>> v.p. adams: motion to adjourn. >> second. >> pres. brandon: all those in favor? the meeting is adjourned. - >> san francisco is known worldwide for its atmospheric waterfront where spectacular views are by piers and sight and sounds are xhanl changing we come to the here for exercise relax

ball games entertainment, recreation market, exhilaration a wide variety of contributions easily enjoyed look up the bay the waterfront is boosting for activities boosting over 25 visitors every year the port of san francisco manages 7 may have million dollars of waterfront from hyde street and fisherman's wharf to the cargo terminals and name shoreline the architecture like pier 70 and the ferry building is here for the embarcadero and a national treasure the port also supports 10 different maritime industries

alongside with the recreational attractions making san francisco one of the most viable working waterfronts in the world but did you think that our waterfront faces serious challenges if earthquake to damage the seawall and the embarcadero roadway rising seawalls will cause flooding at high tides and major repairs to a safe many of the piers the port is at a critically turnl point time to plan for the future of san francisco's waterfront this year the port is updating it's marts plan the plan working group to invite a wide variety of poichdz from the city and

bayview and other advisory teams to share their expertise if intense and maritime operations the waterfront land use plan has guided the use and development of the lanes for the last 20 years major physical changes take place along the waterfront and now is the time to update the waterfront plan to continue improvements that will keep our waterfront vibrate, public and resilient the biggest challenges facing the waterfront are out the site an aging seawall along the embarcadero roadway and seawalls that will rise by 21 hundred to provide and productivity of tides seawall is built over weak soils and mud the next earthquake will cause it to settle several feet without the urgent repairs that will damage the promenade and

other things we've been fortunate over the last hundred years less than one foot of seawall over the next hundred years scientists say we'll have 6 feet of seawall rise imagine the pier 30/32 will be floated, the embarcadero will be flooded our transportation system is fog to be heavy impacts unfortunately, the port didn't have the financial resources to repair all the deteriorating piers let alone the adaptations for sea level rise. >> it is clear that the port can't pay for the seawall reinforcement or deal with the sea level rise on its own needs to raise money to take care of the properties at take care of the maintenance on the properties no way absent anti

funding the issues of sea level rise or the schematic conditions of seawall can be development. >> as studies talk about the seawall challenges the working group is look at the issues please come share our ideas about recreation, pier activities, shoreline habitat, historic preservation and transportation issues and viral protection. >> we know this planning process will not have one question and one answer we need the diversity of the opinions how people feel about san francisco waterfront and want to hear all the opinions. >> the challenges call for big decisions now is the time to explore now and creative ideas to protect and preserve san francisco waterfront. >> now is the time to get involved to help to shape the

future of our waterfront. >> we need the debate please come forward and engage in the process. >> this is your waterfront and this is your opportunity to get involved be part of solution help san francisco create the waterfront we want for the future. >> this is really to dream big and i think about what our waterfront looked like for all san franciscans today and generations to come. >> get involved with the planning process that will set the fraction for what is coming at the port. >> find for in upgrading dates on the ports website. >> (ship blowing horn in

distances)

welcome to the supervisor board of supervisors for tuesday, march 13, 2018. madame clerk, please call the roll. >> breed present. cohen present. fewer present. kim present. peskin present. ronen present. safai present. sheehy present. stefani present. tang present. yee present. madame president, all members are present. >> president breed: join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god,

indivisible with with liberty and justice for all. >> president breed: thank you. madame clerk, any communications? >> clerk: none to report. >> president breed: is there a motion to approve the minutes from january 30 and february 6 as well as the february 7 land use and transportation committee meetings? moved by supervisor yee, seconded by fewer, can we take that without objection? those will be approved after public comment. madame clerk. the next item. >> clerk: the special order at 2:00 p.m. is the appearance by the honorable mayor mark farrell. the mayor may address the board up to five minutes before answering the question from the supervisor, president breed, the discussion shall not exceed five minutes per supervisor. you have the floor. >> thank you, president breed.

good afternoon, everybody. i appreciate the time once again to address everyone during question time. and before i answer the questions posed by president breed, i want to speak briefly about our city's efforts to protect our immigrants from federal administration, who is intent on pursuing not only across our country, but here in california today, bigoted policies. today, our president traveled to san diego to discuss the absurd idea of border wall. i hope he takes time out of his schedule to meet with the hard working and law abiding immigrants here in california. i hope he meets with the community advocate who is leading after school and violence prevention programs for at risk youth. i hope he talks with a single parent who came to this country. i hope he listen to the aspirations of young students

who believe in the greatness of the american dream. we all know he will never do that, because to do that, he would have to recognize that his disastrous immigration policies are tearing our families apart and making our communities less safe across the country and here in san francisco. he would have to recognize that people he demonizes every day has the same hopes and goals as everyone else in the country. the dream to make a better life for themselves and their family. in san francisco, we recognize that these are our neighbors, our friends, our civic leaders. they have planted their roots here, raised their children here and made their home here. and we will fight for their right to stay here. the next time this president visits california, i hope it's to announce comprehensive immigration reform measures that will create pathways to citizenship, something this country has needed or decades.

until that time, he should not be welcome in our state or city. in san francisco, we stand by our immigrant brothers and sisters, we care about where people are going, not where they come from. every day our organizations are fighting on the front lines for the hard working immigrant families. they're working tirelessly on behalf of the communities. we appreciate everything they do. to help complement our work we're approving more funding for legal services at the state level. i want to commend the supervisor, supervisor fewer and ronen who worked so hard with my office on funding for immigration community here in san francisco that does the hard work every single day, day in and day out for the immigrant community. i'm proud that as a city and as a mayor's office we're partnering with the member phil ting on a plan that will pay for

universal representation of every immigrant facing deportation in northern california. we're making our message loud and clear to the federal government. they can bring out the lawsuits, they can threaten our cities, and they can speak of border walls, but san francisco and california will stay strong. we will support our immigrant communities and we will do so from a place of poise, not panic. we are a sanctuary city. passion and hope. two concepts that are alien to there president and his administration. >> president breed: thank you for your comment. madame clerk. >> clerk: you may begin to ask your question. >> president breed: as our budget season approaches we are all formulating -- hold on just a second --

>> president breed: here we go. as our budget season approaches we are all formulating our budget priorities. there are two pieces of legislation making their way through the board of supervisors which will be critical to this year's budget. an ordinance increasing the hourly rate in the minimum compensation ordinance and an ordinance supervisor sheehy and i introduced providing for full scope legal representation to tenants facing eviction. both of these pieces of legislation serve many of the same policy goals of supporting some of our residents who have the fewest resources to remain here in san francisco. in january, i began discussing a proposal with labor organizations and other stakeholders to fund a portion of the wage increase called for

in the proposed amendments to the minimum compensation ordinance of at at least an additional 50 cents above the minimum wage effective january 1, 2018 and phasing in the remainder of the proposed wage increase with new revenue sources in the coming year. at the same time, we began finalizing the costs of providing full scope legal representation to tenants facing eviction. will you commit to continuing these efforts and fund at at least a 50 cent increase above the minimum wage in the hourly rate for workers covered by the minimum compensation ordinance effective july 1, 2018, and at least half of the estimated cost to implement full scope legal representation for tenants facing eviction in our city, and your proposed budget for fiscal year 2018-19? and between the time that this question was submitted and today, the controller has

refined their cost estimate down for the cost of legal representation for tenants. the controller currently now estimates half the cost of this program ranging anywhere between 3.1 and $3.8 million and not the 4.29 initially estimated by mohcd. >> thank you for the question, president breed. i do understand why everyone here is eager to discuss the budget and i've had discussions with many of you already. i know that everyone in the chambers cares deeply about the city and we want secure funding for initiatives we believe will help our residents, but we have only just begun our budget process in city hall. and as mayor, i'm not making any commitments to anybody at this time. our department submitted their budget to our office on february 21. as it stands right now, we still have a $200 million plus projected deficit for the upcoming two years. even more worrying for me, our

latest five-year financial plan projects a shortfall of more than $700 million by the fiscal year 2022. the math is simple. we continue to spend more than we are taking in and that is of grave concern to me. we have a plan to responsibly budget for the next few years. and we have to do it. not only as a way to secure sound fiscal footing, but to counteract economic trends happening across the country. as most of you know, we're in the middle of an 8-year economic expansion, unprecedented time of growth for our city that is destined to end soon. we are at the whims of a volatile federal administration that makes wide ranging economic decisions by the roll of a dice. the administration tax reform measures attacks the affordable care act and cuts social safety net, it has resulted in national uncertainty and chaos, and chaos

at the budget level. however, as unpredictable as things are right now, the current situation could be much worse. thanks to the effort of the former mayor lee and members here of the board of supervisors, the days in san francisco of reserves and budget dead locks are over. as chair of the budget and finance committee for four years, i was proud to work with mayor lee on four balanced budgets. we cut our 6-month budget deficit almost in half and more than doubled our reserves over the four years. we also included funding for long-term investments and infrastructure and projects in capital improvement efforts. our budgets were fiscally sound. in addition, the voters of san francisco passed pension reform of 2011 and with the support of this board of supervisors i authored proposition a and the voters of san francisco passed

health care reform as well. we're on sound financial footing because of many of those decisions. moody's upgraded the bond rating, delivering the highest rating in the city's history and the highest available from the credit agencies. if we want to maintain those ratings, we must continue to practice restrained fiscal policies. i look forward to working with this board of supervisors to make that happen. we can begin to discuss priorities where we were have resources until that time and we're on secured sound financial footing, it will be premature and reckless of me to make commitments. but i look forward to working with everyone here over the upcoming months. i know that we together will come up with a budget that is fiscally sound, that meets the needs of every one of our residents. we have a great opportunity ahead of us and i know we will not waste it. thank you, everybody for your time. >> president breed: so the answer is no, thank you for being here today.

madame clerk, next item, please. >> clerk: ordinance to waive and refund investigation fees imposed by building code for the registered with the office of cannabis. >> president breed: roll call vote. >> supervisor tang no. supervisor yee aye. supervisor breed aye. cohen aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. stefani aye. there are 10 ayes and one no with supervisor tang in the dissent. the ordinance passed.

>> item 3, ordinance to amend the public works code to establish fees for autonomous delivery device testing permits and appeals regarding such permit. >> supervisor yee: colleagues, the legislation establishing the fees for the permit process is the final step in order to implement the permit program for the test offiing of autonomous delivery service. little did i know that my discussions in march of 2017, would take me down a path with legislation being sent back to committee three times and near a year's worth of time. technology was rolling out on our sidewalks. although establishing the permit program seemed to be a fairly innocuous but necessary piece of legislation, where concerns

about safety and impact to public infrastructure could be addressed. it has taken nearly a year to get it to this point, but i'm proud of the effort. my office has worked with all current companies operating autonomous delivery device. including departments, police department, public works and mta and numerous community and neighborhood groups. i want to thank all my colleagues for their time and effort to put into the legislation creating the permit process which was passed by everybody on the board and signed by the mayor. today, we're at the final step with this legislation before you that establishes the fees for the permit program. so, before i devote on this item -- vote on this item, i would like to make a minor amendment, that i pass out the sheet to you.

and this amendment is not directly related to autonomous delivery devices, but it's a cleanup language to correct the dpw code. dpw currently charges $1.23 for the nighttime fees. but the code reflects it as 1.1545. you should have a highlighted copy. i would like to amend the language to reflect the nighttime fee from $115.45, to $123. again, this is not related to this particular delivery device, but it's an opportunity to clean up the language for the code. and then i think deborah -- are you here? deborah from dpw -- anybody from

dpw here to explain why we're doing this? >> good afternoon members of board of supervisors. public works. the fee for the night work on the permit has previously been adopted and has been updated every year per the consumer price index as directed by the controllers office. this was automatically corrected and added for the clarification in this case and it's not part of the legislation for the autonomous deliver kri devices. >> supervisor yee: any questions? >> president breed: i think there is confusion with the amendments in the proposed amendments. you have $115.45 as well as $123 stricken and replaced with $115.45. i think i'm trying to understand

exactly what you're changing, because this is confusing the way that it is submitted. >> supervisor yee: i appreciate it's confusing because what happened, it was confusing to my office when this was put in without any explanation to my office until you just heard it right now. and so we had included the language, nighttime work permit fee for $115.45 and that when we were asked to carry this, it was to change the $123, but as the committee meeting, this was taken the whole thing was taken out so we're adding it back in with the original fee of $115.45 and again amending it. the confusion was that it wasn't

clear to us why dpw wanted this language in there in the first place. and when it was taken out, it was taken out mainly because we didn't understand it and now we understand it and we're amending the original $115.45 to the $123 now. so the crossing out was done at the committee level. >> president breed: and just for clarity because in the original piece of legislation, the resolution we have in the board pact, it's the same resolution that you have given us as an amendment. so i think it's not -- >> supervisor yee: i'm sorry, the amendment is to cross out $115.45 that is here now. and amend it to be $123. >> president breed: ok. so that is not reflected in the amendment that we received and so is everyone clear on that?

mr. givner, is that ok? >> deputy city attorney, so supervisor yee said when he introduced the ordinance at public works' request, the ordinance updated this nighttime permit fee from 115 to 123, that was how it was noticed in committee. a representative of public works spoke in committee and as a result of that public works comments in committee, the committee reduced the proposed fee back down to 115 from $123, supervisor yee proposed $123, committee reduced it to 115 and over further conversations they concluded that public works would like to actually increase it up to $123 again as supervisor yee originally proposed. so i believe the motion is to

amend to increase it back up to $123. >> president breed: ok. all right, i think that's what the confusion was based on the amendment. so with that, supervisor yee has made a motion to amend to change the $115.45 to $123, is there a second seconded by supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i wanted to add clarity. i think jon givner nailed it, but i was going to explain what happened in the committee and the confusion and make the motion to correct the error that i noticed that was in the amendment. but that's already been taken care of, so i wanted to at this time, just say thank you to supervisor yee for taking on this legislation and his interest when it comes to just kind of these bots that are going to be on the street. it's the future. so we're embarking on new

territory. we need to figure out a permitting scheme, we need to figure out a fee scheme on how we're going to start to regulate and enforce regulations on autonomous vehicles that are going to be sharing the sidewalk. and this is something that is very important, particularly in a city that considers vision zero one of the most premiere pieces of policy. so just wanted to recognize erica as well as supervisor yee for their hard work on this piece of legislation. also, john kwong representing dpw, thank you for being here and offering clarification on the fee. but just to in a nutshell, what we're doing is increasing the fee from $115.45 to $123, that motion has been made, it's a good thing and moving in the right direction and, colleagues, i hope you join supervisor yee

and i in supporting this legislation as amended. thank you. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor cohen. colleagues, can we take the amendment without objection? without objection the amendment passes. on the item as amended, please call the roll. tang aye. yee aye. breed aye. cohen aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. stefani aye. there are 11 ayes. the >> president breed:s ordinance as amended passes unanimously on the first reading. item 4 is ordinance to appropriate 2.83 million of sutter stockton garage operating

to the municipal transportation agency, the operating fund for the sutter stockton garage parking management operations in fiscal year 2017-18. item 7 is the resolution to authorize the director of transportation to execute a lease termination agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the uptown parking corporation for the sutter stockton garage. >> president breed: colleagues, can we take those, same house same call? those items pass unanimously. please call item 5 and 6 together. >> item 5 is ordinance amending the annual salary ordinance for 2017-18 and 2018-19 to reflect the addition of seven new positions at the office of the public defender for supporting immigration unit expansion to defend immigrants from deportation. ordinance appropriating 441,000

from state and federal contingency reserve to the office of public defender to expand the immigration unit and to fund legal representation and rapid response social services in fiscal year, 2017-18. >> president breed: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, president breed. colleagues, i can't express how appreciative i am in advance of your support to increase the resources for immigration defense and rapid response. our immigrant communities have faced unprecedented attacks since trump entered office. when he first entered office, we didn't know what the presidency would mean for immigrants in the united states, we didn't know what he would do, but now we know. the ice sweeps across california led to the arrest of 232 people now facing deportation proceedings, half of whom have no prior criminal record. it's understood these arrests send a message to cities like

ours, but i'm proud to live in san francisco where we put our money where our values are and take actions to ensure representation and due process for the immigrant communities. i know that we tackle funding issues like this through the regular budget process, but i believe that the urgency of this -- warranted a supplemental and current fiscal year. and i appreciate my colleagues on the budget committee, supervisors cohen and stefani for their support on the issue. i would like to thank supervisor ionin for dedicated partnership on the legislation and to mayor mark farrell for his strong support and leadership. supervisors sheehy, peskin, kim and yee. colleagues, considering the urgency of this motion, i hope we can support these items today. i would like to thank chelsea and carlina for all their hard work on this issue.

and in support of our immigrant communities all the time. thank you very much. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor fewer. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, i wanted to thank supervisor fewer for taking the lead on the legislation and being such a fierce champion for the immigrant community since you joined the board a little over a year ago. thank you for your leadership, supervisor fewer and your staff, chelsea. i've been working in the immigrant rights movement for the past 15 years and never have i seen the president of the united states specifically attack san francisco or any city in this country because he disagrees with policy that our city has toward immigrants. just in the past few months, president trump has revoked temporary protective status for

50,000 immigrants. he's eliminated daca, impacting a million dreamers. he's tripled the number of immigration officers through immigrati immigration customs enforcement. he's conducted raids. he's issued i-9 audits on 77 bay area employers, the equivalent of administrative raid. he's announced plans for courthouse arrests. he's planned massive raids in sanctuary cities with the goal of arrests and detaining 1500 immigrants. he just recently arrested 150 immigrants in two days after the mayor of oakland warned of potential deportation in her city. they released a statement declaring there will be another 864 arrests in the san francisco bay area in the coming weeks and just this morning, we learned that ice spokesman james schwab

resigned because he was asked to lie about data regarding targeted raids in northern california. this type of attack on the immigrant community is unprecedented. and the only way we can meaningfully fight back is to make sure that anyone caught up in a raid has legal representation. and so that is what we're voting on today. i hope this will be a unanimous vote and i'm very grateful for everyone's leadership in getting this going. i do want to disclose to my colleagues and the public that my husband is the lead attorney in the immigration unit at the public defenders office in san francisco. i have checked with the city attorney and there is no conflict in me voting on the item and working on the item since there is no financial benefit to my family. >> president breed: colleagues, same house same call?

without objection, the items pass unanimously. madame clerk, let's go to item 8. >> clerk: ordinance to amend the planning code to designate 2117-2123 market street, the new era hall, as a landmark under article 10 to make the appropriate findings. >> president breed: same house, same call. the ordinance passes unanimously. next item. >> clerk: item 9 referred without recommendation from the land use committee. it's ordinance to amend the planning code to designate the wall located at the intersection of diamond heights and clipper street as a landmark. and to make the appropriate findings. >> president breed: supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: i would like to ask this item be continued until the next meeting. i know f