i'm the owner of the property actually at 1 88 winfield. so the permit at 1 # 8 winfield is for the conversion of an existing detached three car garage into an adu. mr. bryan fleenor mentioned about the two permits. one permit was done to reno vate the apartment with the permit. when the tenant moved out, i got a permit. done. the second permit he referred to, that's for another apartment that the tenant vacated at 217 virginia. we got the permit, building, electrical, sign off, everything, completed. so we didn't know about the adu until the city encouraged all

the building owner say okay, you can convert a garage into an adu. we go through an eight month process, went through planning and building, and got it finally in january of this year, paid all the fees and everything. that's when mr. bryan fleenor noticed that, and he go against it. he rent one of the garages and i think he doesn't want us to do it you see ba then we have to take the space back. he complained about the little storage under his garage. he used that as a storage before without any authorization, so we take that back and put the washer-dryer to provide a service for the tenants. this tenant never have any washer-dryer in the building. so we found that the perfect space for them, and they are very appreciative. they told me very nice that you do the washer and dryer. i didn't know that they complain now. so they use it, and now, all the sudden, all this comes to, like, a problem.

so mr. bryan fleenor has been using quite a few common space for his own storage. and he's not happy. whenever we try to take it back, do whatever we supposed to do for the building, he's against us. the adu, we followed the servi

>> okay. i believe we've heard earlier that you're able to do an adu as long as there's not a reduction in service. we had a case just recently, but i'm not sure if two separate leases would -- would change that. so maybe i'll ask the department that. >> yeah, yeah. >> okay.

thank you. my 10:30 p.m. question, just so you know. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, cory teague, planning department staff. the subject property is 188 winfield, in the bernal heights special use district. the property tds have two structures on it. one is a six unit building and the other is this detached three car garage structure. again, there's no brief filed, there were no plans, but luckily, i was able to get plans from our system. they had been uploaded in time so we can go over that in just a moment. specifically this permit was to convert the existing three car garage structure into a single adu that encompasses both floors. the planning department

approved the building permit on october 16 of 2017, and it was issued on january 4, 2018 specifically to the appellant's claim bh the ground floor area -- about the ground floor area, we don't have any active complaints on file about any work being done to the garage, so i don't know for sure if -- under what permit or under what circumstances that basement level area was excavated to some degree to add the laundry room. and as much as it's relevant to this case, the planning code does reference that you cannot expand the building envelope. we have consistent for adu's but also for many other purposes, that goingsub enterannean is not considered expanding the building envelope. so for example if you had a

noncomplying structure in your rear yard, and if you wanted to excavate within the existing foot print, we would not require a rear yard variance for that. if you wanted to expand the building up or out, that would. so in some situation, even if that building buildiwas to exp basement level below, that would still meet the code of keeping that within the building envelope as it existed three years ago. as mentioned there was other work going on on this property. we do have an open enforcement case about unpermitted horizontal addition to the rear of this building to the six unit apartment building, not to the garage. in response to that complaint and that open enforcement case, the property owner has filed a permit to legalize that construction and that is currently being reviewed by the

planning department. so all in you will a, thall, t tloerl reviewed by the department. it does meet all the requirements for adding an adu. you can only do one adu in this particular building, and it was appropriately reviewed, and i would respectfully request that you uphold the permit and deny the appeal, and i'm available for any other questions you may have. >> i've got a question, mr. teague. so it was a six units. so was there a soft story retrofit involved in this, as well. >> you mean of the apartment building? >> yeah, correct. >> i'm not aware that there is. >> and then -- >> i forgot to go over the plans, too. if you want to see them -- >> well, it's just kind of tough when people come before us and they don't submit a brief. it makes it really hard to make a decision. >> yeah. i will let the permit holder speak for themselves. i thought it was interesting that no brief had been filed, either. i reached out a couple days ago

to the contact -- i believe the contractor, and it was their understanding at that time that the owner thought the briefs were just between the parties and not to you, and if it would have been -- if it would have been understood, they would have submitted a brief. i don't know if that was the case, but i don't know if they want to speak to that. >> and the other question i have since we had that case where the permit holder was tiboni or something, is that part of the planning regulation that they can't remove space from -- >> right. that is actually not part of the planning code or building code in terms of the reduction of housing services. that is specifically the realm of rent control ordinance and rent board. now, in our materials that we have for people, if you're thinking about doing an adu, we have reference to that. >> i remember it being point

out at the board. >> in the g-23, bull tetin, it says you should be aware if you're thinking of doing this, you should hire an attorney or somebody and get that figured out. >> okay. thank you. >> and i can -- would you like -- show you the plans? >> yeah. >> okay. find another space for those. okay. here, we have the existing apartment building. this is the kind of rear addition that's currently being -- a permit to legalize that is being reviewed. here is the existing three car garage. it sits on a corner. this is virginia street, this is winfield.

the existing three car garage at the basement level is basically this kind of three separate stalls. you have crawl space, crawl space, and this -- this stall has been half converted from crawl space into a laundry room. you then have just essentially the three parking stalls currently. on the first floor, you would have essentially a living room, dining room, one bedroom, one full bath, stairway downs to kind of a common family room with a full bath and one additional bedroom and preservation of the laundry facility there. this is just elevation from winfield, showing the removal of the garage doors and the

addition of two windows. here's the existing real -- rear elevation and here is the proposed elevation. this is the side elevation, where additional access stair is being added. and here is the existing section, taken from the center and the new section, again, the building is not getting any taller or any wider, and here's the elevation from the other side. it's existing and proepposed, which is fairly unchanged.

>> this is a site permit? >> yes, and that's -- that's all the plans. >> do you have another question, president? >> so when you say legalize the space in the rear, is that part of the original foot print or are you talking about the interior space or is that a new structure in general? >> well, there's no unauthorized expansion of the building at the subject of this permit, which is the detached garage. as a separate matter, this little pop out here of the main apartment building, this -- we received a complaint that that had been added without permits, and so subsequently, the proper owner has come in with a permit to legalize this portion, but the adu is in this structure, and it is -- they're separate issues. >> so did that have to go for 311? >> this will. >> okay. >> yes. the addition of the adu did not. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. mr. duffy?

thank you. >> commissioners, joe duffy. i'll be very brief. the building permits a form three. it was taken in for review. the permit was issued on the 4 of january , 2018, suspended on january 10 because of the appeal, and the addenda is still going through review, although that has been stopped pending the outcome of the appeal. i didn't hear any building code issues being brought up, some reference to earlier permits brought up, they appear to be remodel permits for apartments. they didn't look to be permits that i would have been concerned about, so i'm va available for any questions skbl ok. >> okay. is there any public comment?

both of you, standup so we can keep it moving. you have three minutes. please identify yourself. >> thank you. my name is kevin b. fleenor. i'm bryan fleenor's husband am i allowed to speak? >> okay. you're a related party, so you would have to speak during his time. you can speak in rebuttal during his time if you want to. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm megan adler. i'm a tenant and i've been in this rent controlled building for ten years. and my apartment is directly above the renovations that were illegally done and the excavations that happened underneath my home for many, many, many months, past 7:00 p.m. and on sundays. all of the dirt that was excavated was put in the back yard and never removed.

i had to pay for someone to take care of the yard and remove the dirt myself. i am 2 feet from the renovations that were going to be happening, and my amenities are going to be decreased. they are trying to kick me out, and i'm a teacher and trying to afford to live here. i cannot believe the egregious things that have happened in my building since the new owner bought it. they have done so many things that are so illegal. i just can't explain, but i'm also saying that my privacy is going to be absolutely impaired by this new deck that they're putting on behind me, 2 feet from my deck. also, all the excavation, all of the work, i work from home in the summer. i'm a poet and a teacher and a tutor, and i can't imagine what's going to happen to the deck, the illegal room that

happened underneath me. and the permit that they applied for was to put in a laundry, but they built an entire new room, an entire new room. so i am not happy about this. i don't interrupt anythitrust going to live there. i've lived there ten, but the last three years as a tenant have been heck, and i'm not moving and getting away from my teaching job. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> and so my name is jonas pettison, and i live on the top floor of the building in unit number five, right above megan. and i've lived in that unit for approximately five years. and the main complaint i'm having is that i've received absolutely no information about

this construction whatsoever, and i'm -- i'm in the same situation as megan, that i work from home a lot, so this type of construction would affect my day-to-day life a lot. and i just would have appreciated it if i could have received more information about it, you know, beforehand. so...thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. we'll hear rebuttal by mr. fleenor. three minutes. >> okay. thank you. first, i want to talk about the room that was constructed during the building permit that was just for interior construction, and if you look at those drawings, you'll see that that's shown as existing construction under those drawings. however, the ordinance said that it has to have been constructed at least three

years before to -- you know, that that -- that -- and this was just illegally constructed in the last year. and the fact that it's now -- the fact that it's not on the current complaint, i don't understand, because i reviewed that with mauricyohernandez, and and he looked at it and said yes, i can see it in detail. but i couldn't check the fact that that's not considered the scope for part of that complaint. i'll have to renew the complaint. but at any rate, that building is going to be incorporated into this new structure. and you know, it's tainted. it's been built in violation, and it has retaining walls that

have no structural design, no structural review. the fact that you don't see any evidence of it in the inspection reports isn't indicative that it wasn't built without a permit. this is the m.o. of -- of these operators. they start without a permit until they're required to. they build without a permit, they build in advance of the stated scope of the permit, they get caught, they go and have a remediation permit. and a portion of this new structure is going to be included. in addition, we're going to have a number of other changes in the site plan, in the site permit that really require some review. and the point here is not to adjudicate the ordinance about the conversions. that, we already understand.

that, we support. this is going beyond what was understood by that to take all control and all review out of all aspects all across the site. the deck, the retaining walls, are all included in this permit, and i ask that you, for a number of reasons, find that this permit should be overturned. >> okay. thank you. okay. miss win? you have three minutes. >> yes. first of all, i didn't provide a brief because i thought that it was stressed directly to dbi in the planning because i went and got a permit, and i didn't understand why it was appealed.

number two, it was for the rent control, any know if i could get the adu approved. i wait until for sure i can get it before i can go to the rent control and see if i can take back the garage that i rent into mr. brian fleenor. as far as megan adler, she said there's some excavation under her apartment. that's not true. the apartment number one, under her, there's no excavation whatsoever. it's an existing apartment that we rhenvate and we do all kind of hardwood floor. we put in the hardwood floor instead of the wall-to-wall carpet, so that must be the noise. there's no excavation. there is an existing apartment in the basement. as far as the historical window removed at 217 virginia which is another apartment that the tenant vacated, we replacement the window at the kitchen, so

bry bryan fleenor complained, so the building department came out and made us replace the window correctly. the london room that -- laundry room that bryan fleenor complained, he use it as a storage. not only they use it as a laundry, they start putting all kinds of things in there for their own purpose. i didn't build anything. i thought okay fine. i just build for you guys, and i don't understand the nature of the complaint. that's all i have to say. thank you very much please, very much approve the adu permit. >> thank you. mr. teague, anything further? >> hello, again, just a few quick issues. i don't think there's any dispute, there's some issues on this site regarding unauthorized work and there are currently open complaints with the planning department and dbi

and at least one permit to try to correct some of that work, so there's still -- >> this is about the permit before us. >> there's another permit before us and i'm sure there'll be continued work between planning department and dbi on those enforcement issues going forward and any other enforcement issues that may arise. so i sympathize with the existing tenants on those issues, but specifically for the permit that's in front of you today, again, just to clarify, i mean, the build envelope allows you to go below grade. in this case, the rear of the building really wasn't even completely below grade, and the exterior walls of the building were not expanded to add the laundry room. i believe there was some excavation inside the walls. they converted it from a crawl spras to a more habitable room from head height, but the actual room itself was not expanded in any way to add the

adu either previously or as part of this permit. and even if that space had been opened in some way, as was discussed, a cantilevered space would been allowed within the code to be an adu even if that was an open paspace. so separate from the other issues that are legitimate, this particular permit was reviewed and approved appropriately. >> is there a deck on this 5 du? -- adu? >> on the adu? not that i'm aware of. there is an existing deck on the -- at the rear of the main building, and it's possible that the unauthorized addition in the rear was also going to include a deck, too. i'm not positive. i don't have those plans in front of me.

>> we'll probably see that in front of us. >> i cannot speculate, but it's possible. thank you. >> okay. mr. duffy? >> commissioners, just to clarify something when i spoke about the other permits on the property, there are four addresses on this property, and the 217 virginia, as you've just heard, we actually had issued a notice of violation, and they have applied for a permit to comply with the notice of violation, so i just didn't want to make it sound as if everything was good. there is issues that you've heard that from a few different people. >> that deals with the other issue. >> yez, you're right. it's not on the permit before us tonight. >> is it just one nov? >> that's what i can see, and i didn't even get it before i came up tonight. i just went into 180 winfield.

>> okay. thanks. >> thank you. okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> you say it appears things with copacetic with this one, but what other things are going on on the property that's being looked at and enforced by planning. dbi -- >> yeah. >> plus some of the issues are related to, you know, the tenants' issues. >> right. >> that are probably going to be before another agency. >> well, it's just like the previous -- the previous case where what was before us was not really was being presented. >> in terms of the permit. >> yeah, so i agree that it's easy to get side tracked on the other issues which may or may

not have been done illegally, but the permit in front of us seems to have been applied for and issued appropriately. >> is there a motion? >> move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. >> okay. from commissioner lazarus, a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the motion was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion passes, and that concludes the hearing. adjournment. >> meeting's adjourned.

>> good morning, everyone and thank you for coming my name is rosy form treasurer of the united states and the form of empowerment 2020. >> yeah. >> empowerment 2020 is an initiative to durnl encourage a million women we 2020 to go in leaders positions it is request quality day and the one hundred year of the 19 amendment that give woman the right to vote

joining me on stage a margo the ceo of ma tell. >> (clapping.) >> 74 percent have been girls in middle school express interest in office only girls are expressing an interest in computer science 50 percent less graduating are for girls than thirty years ago i've spent 8 years of the treasurer of the united states to have a portrait on the photo in our public engagement process there were one hundred of women overlooked in the history of our country many tops will be discussed and empowerment 2020 conference everything there empowering young women and girls to be the future leader to encourage women to get into stem education and

getting into nasa and google and making sure that they are part of tech economy. >> the second part of empowerment 2020 is women money and power to put women in so and so positions for the corporate fleet and elected office the third part of empowerment 2020 are the conferences their action oriented women have flatlined at 20 percent on that percentage one and 20 percent women a in congress that is stagnated if we get up to thirty percent fabulous 80 percent would be amazing that conversation is equality will be something we're used to as pair the culture i'd like to that that will be done in 2020 but if >> all right, everyone. i know that there's a lot going

on today and people have busy schedules so we are going to get starteded. -- started. good afternoon. my name is david compos and i'm here today in my capacity as chair of the san francisco democratic county central committee. we have here from the county committee c. francis shay, who is another member of the committee and our executive director adam mays. what you see here is the -- a united front by the elected city and county of san francisco, beginning with our mayor, mayor mark ferrell and a number of other officials. you are going to hear from some of them to make a very clear statement and send a very strong message that we as the elected family of san francisco stand against this decisive proposal

by angela leoto. we are here because we believe that our sanctuary ordnance is ultimately about protecting not only the rights of immigrants but actually keeping san francisco safe. we believe that that ordnance enhances public safety and it's important that the people of the city and county of san francisco hear directly from our elected leadership. i would end with this before i turn it over to mayor ferrell, that in some respects the damage has already been made and the damage is that this effort increases the fear and anxiety within the immigrant community that are already terrified of having any interaction with government, local government included. in that sense it is so important for those immigrants to hear directly from our elected

family. with that i'd like to introduce the mayor of the city and county of san francisco, mayor mark ferrell. >> thank you, david. i want to thank everyone for being here this afternoon. first of all i want to say that i'm proud to be here, to stand with everyone beside me and everyone who is behind me to stand with the residents of the city of san francisco. what i also say that i'm incredibly disappointed to have to be here. never in my wildest dreams did i think that the rhetoric from donald trump and washington dc would find a way to our become yard here in the city of san francisco. to me it is absolutely insane. you know, when i took office in january 1st of the first things i did was meet with many of the people who represent our immigrant communities here in san francisco. many of our immigrant rights groups, many of the non-profits that work in our community every

single day to keep our city safer. i wanted to reassure them that despite what donald trump was doing and all of the rhetoric that he was talking back in january regarding the i.c.e raids and all of the threats to our country and to the residents of our city that we would not let these threats deter us here in san francisco. we would not let the divisive resident -- rhetoric, the insane policies that i think who we are in san francisco. san francisco will never abandon our volu values. san francisco will never cower to the fear of a president who has hateful rhetoric. we will not do that here in san francisco. we are a sanctuary city. it's in our dna. it is who we are as san francisco. we understand that our immigrant communities make our city

stronger. our immigrant communities make our city safer. they make our cities more diversive, more -- more, diverse. i'm screwing that up. they make our city stronger at the end. we are talking about families who have come from other countries, fleei persucution. they are planting their children here, incredible members of our community here in san francisco and we are going to fight for their right to stay here today and forever here in san francisco. >> [applause] >> i will say that no matter what comes out of donald trump and the federal administration in washington dc, in san francisco we are going to reject

that rhetoric. we are going to standby our immigrant communities. we are going to turn our back to donald trump's idea of building walls around our country and ripping families apart with ill conceived policies and divisive, hateful rhetoric that is dividing our country right now. in san francisco we stand for something very, very different. i will say that as mayor of the city of san francisco we are going to stand side by side with our immigrant communities here in san francisco. not only is it the right thing to do, and i am proud to say this as someone born and raised in san francisco, it's the san francisco thing to do. we are a sanctuary city, let us be clear about that. we are a sanctuary city today, we are a sanctuary city tomorrow. we will always be a sanctuary

city here in san francisco. let us never forget that. thank you, everyone for being here. >> [applause] >> thank you. thank you, mr. mayor. you know, hearing from the law enforcement leadership of the city is really critical and we are proud to have with us today our city attorney, dennis herre herrera. our public defender jeff adache and then i want to turn it over to the chief law enforcement elected official for the city and county of san francisco, our district attorney george gascon. >> [applause] >> thank you, david. thank you, mr. mayor. thank you to the entire city family. you know, there are many things that we can today as to why there is something inherently wrong with what one particular candidate for mayor in this city is trying to propose. i will not mention the name

because i don't want my statement to actually be googled and give any additional amplification to that person. is message is wrong for many different reasons. i'm going to touch up on three. one is about public safety. there are studies after studies and we are down to three and a half of three decades of sanctuary policies around this nation and we know that jurisdictions that have sanctuary policies actually are safer than jurisdictions that are not. i personally can speak not only because i know there is science behind this but i can speak for personal experience having been a law enforcement official in three different jurisdictions. two that have very strong sanctuary policies and one that didn't. i grew up in l.a. many of you know that. l.a. has had very sanctuary

policy. l.a. started the first sanctuary policy in in nation. then i spent time in arizona where the contrary was the case. i can tell you case after case of people afraid to report crimes, people afraid to coming forward and participating in the social and political process in our community and how often that led to people that were here lawfully, even born here to be victimized because earlier incidents of crime were not reported by those that feared that if they were to report the crime they would be deported from this nation. now i'm here in this wonderful city that my wife and i call home and i can tell you that just in the last year we have seen a 17% reduction in the reporting of domestic violence by immigrant communities, both in the chinese and the latino community because of fear of being deported if you come

forward, if you come to the hall of justice. here we are having a candidate looking for the highest office in our county pandering to the same things that we hear from washington on a regular basis. that is wrong. secondly, in addition to the public safety message, i want to send another message and that is social responsibility message. you know, it wasn't that long ago in the late 1800s, for some it may seem like very long but when you look at the history of mankind really a short period of time when messages about the criminality about recent immigrants were being directed towards the irs and irs and italian. they were wrong then and they are wrong now. they were not likely to be anymore criminal than the rest of the community and certainly

latinos today and the new imgrants from em-- immigrants from asia are not anymore likely to be criminals. we are a nation of laws. we have a constitution that people forget when it comes to immigration and there is such a thing as due process. the reality if someone gets arrested for a felony crime does not necessarily equate to felony crimes. they are doing their job and doing it properly. they are under a preponderance of the evidence or probable cause. later we find additional evidence that as we move forward in the case that they did not commit the crime at all or perhaps the behavior was more consistent with a misdemeanor and the case would not be prosecuted. even in the case where the case

is prosecuted we don't get it right 100% of the time. our friends in the public defenders office went from time to time, not always but that, again, speaks to -- i'm just directing this to jeff. i'm just saying that, you know, the reality is because someone gets arrested for a felony doesn't necessarily mean they have committed a felony. so we have a public safety reason, we have a social responsibility reason and we have a due process reason among the many others that you are going to hear today. so i urge every san francisco resident to reject the message of hate. i urge every san francisco resident to reject political pandering for political convenience for some. thank you.

>> we are in the middle of a mayor's race and it was important to us to invite the may skr-- major candidates for mayor to be here and there is a united front. at this point i would like to ask the candidates. i'm going to do it in alphabetical order and we have right behind me the president of the board of supervisors and i know that we have a number of superv supervisors here. thank you for being here. president london reid. >> [applause] >> thank you. i'm proud to be here to stand united with the citizens of san francisco and our immigrant community to say that we will not demonize the immigrant community here in the city and county of san francisco. our policies would shortcut the due process rights of our immigrants regardless of their immigration status, to say that our sanctuary city ordnance

makes san francisco a magnet to felons across americans is wrong. to say our sanctuary city ordnance makes san francisco a more violent city is counter to the values that we hold deeply in san francisco and is troubling. other one-third of our relatives, friends and neighbors and coworkers are immigrants in the city of san francisco. immigrants are not making san francisco less safe. they never have. our city is safer because all of our residents including our undocumented residents can call the police, can be witnesses without fear of deportation. policies that undermine distrust don't make us safer. they breed fear, silence and distrust amongst law enforcement. as we stand here today, what is clear is that our work is not done. that collectively our suit for

more equitable, compassionate and inclusive city is more urgent now than ever. as dr. king would say, we need to be reminded of the fierce urgency of now. we may have a president who fuels the worse aspects of our humanity, a president who has turned resentment into political strategy and a president who wants to build walls and ban immigrants on the basis of their religion. here in san francisco we stand united for something greater. we stand for what is right. we stand for tolerance, for love, for inclusiveness and sanction way. we stand together in the light. san francisco is and will always be a sanctuary city as our city has and will continue to welcome immigrant communities from all over the world. we are a safer city because when

we come together anything is possible. thank you for all being here today. >> thank you. i know that supervisor kim is in a land use community meeting so i don't know if she will be able to take it. i want to turn it over now to another major candidate for mayor, state senator mark leno. >> [applause] >> chairman compos, thank you so much for assembling this group of elected officials today. i'm happy to stand with everyone here and stand in firm opposition to any proposal going forward to decimate our sanctuary city policies in san francisco. the suggestion in trump terms that our sanction way city is a magnet and i'm quoting from the

mayor candidate who put this forward, murderers, rapest and child moeless -- molesters is no touch thing. san francisco is a welcoming city. there's no facts, no day for such a wreckless claim. we know this country is under a shadow of mean spiritedness and failed leadership. that is no excuse for a candidate for mayor to repeat his words. i have already been accused by her in the press as standing with felons. i'm not standing with felons nor are any of the people standing behind me. we are standing for public safety, public health and public education. let's be very clear of that. public safety you've heard from the district attorney already.

public health, we want everyone in san francisco documented or other wise to make good use of our public health system. viruses and bacteria do not know immigration status. if we want our children, our families, our communities to be healthy we need to keep everyone within those communities healthy and that means everyone should have access to our public health system that will not be the case if people living in fear and living in shadow. the same for public education. if you think your child is at risk of not coming home from school someday because of the federal government sweeps or that you might not be at home to welcome your child if he or she goes to school because of the same fear, well then you're not going to make use of our public education system.

who benefits from having san francisco residents afraid of getting a public education. that creates a chronic underclass of residents. of course the child without a high school diploma has a greater likelihood of finding themselves into our criminal justice system and the loop repeats itself. public safety, public health, public education. i also have to point out that i believe this proposal runs counter to state law and would be preempted. we are a sanctuary state in california. there are 800 felony crimes that are not protected from sanctuary status in the state nor would they be here locally. so let's ignore wild, reckless rhetoric, focus on the safety,

the health and the education of every san francisco resident documented or other wise. thank you. >> [applause] >> thank you issue senator leno. as you can see we have people from different parts of the san francisco elected family. i just want to share that i acknowledge rafael mandleman is here. we have honey mahogany. also from the democratic central committee and a member of the board of supervisor bevin duffy is here. we have former supervisor -- i'm sorry, don avalos who is one of the authors of the amended sanctuary ordnance. then before i turn it over to our supervisors i also want to acknowledge that our delegation in sacramento is proud to be here as well. i know that assembly member phil

tang couldn't be here but someone from senator scott weiner's office as well. i'll turn it over to jeff. >> thank you for allowing many me to read this today. we need to promote policies that protect people living in our city. when we had donald trump and jeff sessions to mas deport people installing fear and terror in our communities we theed to need -- need to stick up for our immigrant communities. the last thing we need is an attack on our immigrants coming from within our own city. san francisco has a lot of real issues that need to be addressing but demonizing immigrants will not help us solve our problems. it will help us instill more fear in people trying to live their lives and take care of

their families. people are afraid to go to work because they don't know if they will be picked up by i.c.e. children are afraid to go to school because they don't want to leave their parents. our neighbors are living in fear and it's policies that tell people you are a part of our city, you are safe here. last year the california legislature passed sanctuary law sb54 that is moving our entire state in the right direction towards creating safe communities for everyone. this happened in part because cities like san francisco have been leaders in this movement and today we cannot -- can continue to lead by rejecting any effort to move us back ward. today all of us stand together to send a clear message that san francisco is a sanctuary city where immigrants can live in peace and harmony without fear and that policies like ours make everyone in our city safer. thank you. >> [applause] >> thank you, senator weiner. i also want to acknowledge some members of the immigrant rights

commission, mario pass, flores cong and michelle wong. with that i would like to give the last word to the two members of the board of supervisors here, supervisor peskin and roman. supervisors. >> let me start by thanking the community who came out very swiftly last friday to affirmatively denounce this absolutely insane initiative and then let me just tell you my thinking when i got a call about today's press conference. my first thought was let us not -- i think our district attorney said this -- give my name recognition to the individual who would politically pander like this. my second thought was that silence ends up being

complicity. even though the community came out it's very important for the elected officials to come out too. let me be clear, none of us are squared of -- scared of getting on the ballot and being voted on by the voters of san francisco what absolutely support our sanctuary city status. that is not what this is about. we have an obligation and responsibility to call this out because when you have that kind of silence we all know what has happened around war crimes, around genocide, around displacement and so that is why we are here today. i also want to say something about being an elected official. yeah, we have heated racers for supervisor and for mayor but there are moral lines that one does not cross to get one's name in the nooup -- newspaper and that line has been crossed here. if you want to put a ballot

initiative on about the summer of love, go with god, god bless. wonderful things. if you want to put on a divisive, hateful ballot measure like this, we've got to call foul and that's why we are all here today. thank you to every elected official and the press and the commissioners for being here. >> thank you for having me here. thank you to david compos for putting this together. what i have to adhere is what a true leader does is not demonize one of the most marginalized groups that is living every day of their lives in fear in our city and all over this country. what a true leader does is fight the root cause issues that make

our city and our country less safe. let's talk about what those real issues are. they are poverty, they are an education system that is starved for resources. there is severe inequality and then let's talk about the easy access to guns all throughout this country. if you want to protect the public safety then let's work on the real issues impacting all of our public safety. let's not demonize a group that contributes so much to the city of san francisco. thank you so much. >> [applause] >> thank you. we are actually going to give the last word to the other mayor candidate who was able to make it. we want to thank her for being here. you have the last word, supervisor jane kim.

>> thank you so much, chair compos. we are in the committee of land use where we are interrogating our neighbor over falsified information. fairly extraordinary. i also want to be here today to stand with our immigrant community and all of our residents regardless of documentation. i am fortunate to be born in this country. not every member of my family came to this country with documentation. we have a broken, broken immigration system that is incredibly difficult for anyone to mire their way through. i'm proud to be in a city that's a sanctuary city and i'm proud to stand here today with so many of our community leaders and our elected leaders in saying that we fully support the full breath of what that means. we don't support and i don't support the initiative that is being proposed today. if we truly believe in making our city safer then we really

need to proactively act to invest in our public education system, to invest in affordable housing and to really seriously look at gun control reform as supervisor ronhan has stated. this is just a false narrative that we have repeated over and over again. this is an old story. we all know better than this. we can do better than this and i'm proud to stand here today with all of the community and elected leaders. thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you all for being here. thank you to the press and thank you to the elected family for being here, to the community. if there's one message to the individual whose name shall not be mentioned that we want to send is enough. in any native tongue [foreign language].

>> it's great to see everyone kind of get together and prove, that you know, building our culture is something that can be reckoned with. >> i am desi, chair of economic development for soma filipinos. so that -- [ inaudible ] know that soma filipino exists, and it's also our economic platform, so we can start to

build filipino businesses so we can start to build the cultural district. >> i studied the bok chase choy her achbl heritage, and i discovered this awesome bok choy. working at i-market is amazing. you've got all these amazing people coming out here to share one culture. >> when i heard that there was a market with, like, a lot of filipino food, it was like oh, wow, that's the closest thing i've got to home, so, like, i'm going to try everything. >> fried rice, and wi