practice, we allowed 30 minutes time. the existing practice has always been to allow our respective union partners to come in for at least ten minutes. for now, that time has expanded to 30 minutes. the bill requires two fundamental things i would like to hat highlights. a public employer to give a union notice regarding new employee orientation of new employees of that unit, at least ten business days prior to the orientation. they comply with that portion of the bill by providing all unions with an annual, central and typically, what we do, we sent out the annual schedule between november and december for the following year. in this particular case, for 2018, we sent our schedules between november and december. the second area at that the bill also covers, is employer to provide a union representing it's employees, with the name,

job title, department, work location, home, work, and personal cellular telephones, personal e-mail addresses and that's been a coordination efforts between my respective hr department, and dhr for the city. that is just to give you a quick i -- highlight of the bill. with the passing of this bill in concert and with working with commissioners, we have made some additional changes with respect to our communications with the labour union partners. regarding the following ways. we sent personal calendar invitations to the respected union organization who have members attending an eeo at each of the upcoming sessions with the wrist instructions on where to go, when to arrive and we also provided copies of the agenda and the roster which is the actual sign and seat. these invites typically go out 1-12 to a business days before

n.e.o. is scheduled. to give you a context of how often we conduct n.e.o., we have a regular schedule of two n.e.o. a month at the training conference -- happens on the first day of the employee's work. during the summertime, we moved to scheduling it every week due to the high volume of employees that we hire, and typically there in time. my staff are very busy at the moment. one of the request that was made was to further enhance our communications by implementing a new form which identifies employees a respective union organizations, contact information for the union representative, and a link so the employee can actually act on that information and become much more dictated about what being a represented employee means. this form will be on letterhead and will include the general manager's signature on it, and

it will be disseminated at the beginning of every new employee orientation. we think commissioner courtney for working with us to enhance some of our communications. we indeed a partner with all of our respective labour organizations to make sure all employees are aware which unions they belong to, and how we can continue to work with them in that partnership. at this time, i will take any questions you might have. >> thank you. public comment in this item? so i want to thank you for your work and your staff. i also want to note that this isn't just about the assembly bill, but the assembly bill, and that effort was really triggered by a national effort by those of you who don't know, supreme court decision that is inevitable coming down any day now that will really impact the way that labor unions an in the

public sector do with their members and how the employer feels about their members. for a few years, i've been talking about as having some kind of an articulate -- articulate workforce development at our level so we know exactly how we deal with current employees, onboarding, recruitment, et cetera. i think this is, not just a positive step, i think it is kind of step that, and i think we have to thank francesca and we need to thank the city thinky attorney's office too, about their assistance -- without their assistance, we would have wobbled more. there is a big difference between the kind of folks that work for the public utilities commission that work indoors and have college°. that are assigned workstations. we take these devices for granted. they are very expensive. expensive to upload. with my cable bill i cut that cable bill but with the folks that i come into contact with

routinely, they are confronted with making decisions about whether or not to pay their auto insurance, or their cable or their internet or whatever it is. there is a big difference between a young man, a woman who is being brought on board at a much lower rate of pay, from a community that we identify as being a community that we want to go over and above for. and so, providing them, and making sure they have that information, is probably one of the things that i hold most dearly to myself, in terms of taking care of our workforce. i do look forward, and this is an interesting game, because, you know, the chair man or chairwoman it sits in that seat for about a year. it is really, really hard to get anything done in a year. but that is how the game is played. so, i am moving this ball, and it's obvious, to everybody, i'm moving this ball because i expect a real thoughtful and deliberate approach to work force development in both the

public and private sector, because the mayor, about a week ago, he also convened a group to anticipate the next economic downturn. the pressures that we were under 3-5 years ago, with respect to the community workforce, they are about to come back here. we will be ready for it. because i think, even though we don't always agree, i think we are all thoughtful, and deliberate enough to work together, find a common ground, and get it through. my hope is that there is a little tweaking i see that i would like to talk to the general manager about, but i also want to thank the general manager and the city attorney, because at the end of the day, i want to be part of a conversation with all of us. i want to be part of a conversation that sets the gold standard for the city. i think the notification -- from the gm, and what we aim to do with this little onboarding piece, sets the gold standard and i think we should ask or

other city departments have access to it. thank you for your efforts. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now commissioner? >> thank you. >> commissioner courtney. public comments on this item? item seven f. please. >> seven f., i was going to bring up the award and i just want to say, i want to thank staff on to answer your question park we actually looked at last years and we talked to the ways we can improve it. a lot of those ideas came from you and from some of our atms and staff who have worked on the awards. what i think everyone felt in the little video was that people can actually have and show their

families. people who couldn't attend. i thought it was a great touch as well. i'm just really proud, and i'm looking forward to getting some feedback, so that next year will be even better. if you guys, or any commissioner attended, if you can provide some feedback in ways that we can improve it, that would be great. and with that, that concludes my report. >> any public comment on seven f.? >> at this point i would like to hear the tale of the origin of this but we will sa save that fr another time. >> bay area water supply and conservation agency update. welcome. >> thank you commissioners. can i have the projector, please?

i will apologize for my low-tech version here. i had a failure of technology on my end. so donna assisted me when i started out today. i wanted to take my time today to talk to you about an effort that we've been working on for the last year. and we planned t plan to move fh it next year, regarding the governor's request to make water conversation a way of life. the work that we have been doing for that... and only 2017, there were two pieces of legislation that were introduced in sacramento to support the governor's call for water conservation and this was conservation above and beyond the idea of a drought conservation. really speaking to long turn -- long-term conservation use. both of those have moved through the legislature and have made it out at the legislature as they are awaiting the governor's signature. what we did, in july 2017, as we

initiated the development of our strategic plan to meet this. to really try to decide how to help our agencies meet this requirement, and how to do it best. we anticipated to have a role for that, and this was our weight to try to develop that. so that strategic plan had three main components. the legislation is very specific. it has very detailed requirements about how to develop water targets, activities you have to do, highly data intensive and activity focused. so, in looking at it, the question was, we have to assess what it will take for 26 agencies, 26 water suppliers that are small, and large. cities, water districts, private utilities, how do they have this information and do they have it available to them? what does it take for them to

get this information? what are the systems in place within their districts that will help them, you know, do this work? so that assessment of their capability is is a critical component of it. we also looked at the cost of that. not just what it would take for them to do it, but also trying to figure out what would it cost for them to do it? part of this was figuring out how do we help them implement the most cost-effective way? and we use this information to also develop our position on the legislation. we were relatively quiet, we don't speak on active positions aren't bills but we do push in certain directions. we work closely with the association of california water agencies and other water utilities in the states and with your staff as well, to get certain changes made for the legislation so it can be more easily implemented and actually made sense this type of area. and that was successful.

on the legislation currently reflects that. the other thing that's this information did is we developed a work plan. based upon what the assessment said, and what they needed to do and where we can identify some cost-effective opportunities, we put together a work plan. what we could do to help the agencies next year and what they were going to do. this idea of working together which is consistent with how we implement conservation today in the service area. so, a couple of the key pieces of this legislation, the first is outdoor water use. and examining what kind of information our agencies had to look at our out -- outdoor water use. landscape area measurements is

one of the big requirements of this new legislation. essentially coming up with a water budget on a per residential account basis based on actual measurement data out. if you can imagine, i know this is one of your issues and constraints you have had to, kind shows try to get that data is difficult. coming up with cost-effective ways to do that is important and how you deal with that amount of data. those types of analytical questions where the things we looked at with our agencies. commercial and industrial water use is another major component, that to be totally honest, a somewhat undeveloped in the service area. is not the largest sector of water use, and it has been one that has not easily been responding to previous water conservation efforts. so now, looking at, you know, what kind of commercial audits can we do? which ones are successful? how do we all classify our commercial accounts? do we all do it the same? and how do we change that at what would that take? these type of questions all get into different departments, if

you will in the city, you know, who does the billing, who does all the information. it is not a slamdunk and try to figure out the answers. and then, water loss is another major component of legislation. it was building on a previous bill that passed a few years before that. senate bill 555 that required agencies did you water loss evaluations, and then do verifications after that, every year. the first set of evaluations were sent in last fall. and now he requires verification. this is done annually. again, these are areas where it is like, what worked? what didn't work? what kind of help do you need? i will say, we have worked mostly with chris nelson in your water supply and treatment division manager, and helping us with this. it certainly impacts, you know, the work that you do on your metres, and your launching of the metres on the verification and all those types of things. that will be an ongoing effort.

that is not an easy one, but it will be necessary to make -- meet the requirements of this law. there's a reason why we don't do those things anymore. [laughter] so, last week, the board adopted the work plan for fiscal year 2018-2019. it essentially took all of this information and put it into an action plan. we did a lot of case studies with this analysis and try to look at other water utilities throughout the state and elsewhere to say, how did they meet these requirements? what are different ways to implement these programs? we brought that into what we are going to do. the first one is a residential indoor, outdoor water use study. the legislation requires a certain residential efficiency, and then we have to do the outdoor efficiency. we, in our region, have not done a study that provides a

breakdown of what is an indoor use on a per account basis or a type of residential customer basis and an outdoor use. we will go through that process to understand what is the base start in the service area for residential water use so we can understand, what do we need to tackle to meet the requirements of the law? the other thing we are going to do is implement a pilot audit program on a regional basis. we will look at a couple of different options to see what might work and come up with the best alternative to me to the needs an exhaustive -- cost-effective way for the agencies. the other piece is what we call our water loss management program. and bringing on someone to do multiple parts of this water loss investigation. it is highly analytical and there's very specific requirements. and unfortunately it is kind of like any other audit we have one person that does the analysis and you have to have a third

party verification and then you also have education about it. what we have found is some agencies want help with the water loss and they will do the verifications and some want to do the verification without the loss. it is a combination of activities, but overall, getting them to get these things done and getting them completed, so we can all meet the requirements of the state legislation. i'm really excited. i think it was a bold step for us to take this on a year ago. really, it is building on what has been our historic activity for water conservation, and what has worked in the service area, and in recognizing the differences between our agencies, and how we can help their needs. i was very excited with the support we go off and the board the other night and i look forward to seeing that what the results are. just to kind of, in my comments, so, as we continue to keep track

of water use in the service area for last march, about a month and a half ago, i guess, use was 28% less than it was in march 2018. this is where it is interesting. this is total water use. all support -- all supplies of the area. social water use has been reduced by 21%. the interesting thing, is for the san francisco supply, it was only reduced by, now i can't find my numbers. four%. so, this is something we know happened. agencies have multiple supply sources are using something different. and in this incidents, it is likely. another wholesaler in the issues have a treatment issue in their plants. they asked some of their agencies to take more san francisco supply.

the presumption is it will balance itself out. it was certainly things we have done in the flip side, but it is an interesting thing to track. if you look at one supply, you missed the picture. this is something we will continue to keep track of as we move through that season and we see what the long-term implications are. with that, i will conclude my comments. >> thank you. commissioners? thank you very much. is there any public comment? we will move to the consent count. madam secretary? >> all matters constitute the consent calendar are considered to be retained by the san francisco public utilities commission and will be acted upon by single vote of the commission. there will be no discussion. in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered a separate item.

>> the request to remove items from the consent calendar? >> commissioners? or public? no discussion, the public comment, do we have a motion to approve? all in favour? opposed? approved. item number 10. >> item number 10, improvement number 1, customer and administrative services for community choice aggregation programs with energy solutions, and authorize the general manager to bring and this amendment and increase it by 14 million and extend th extentm of the agreement by three years. >> discussion, commissioners? >> any public comment on item ten. do i have a motion to approve? all in favour?

opposed? item 11, please. >> item 11, approve correction to an error of scheduled... adopted by the commissioner on april 10th 2018 by resolution number 18 to include a monthly service charge for nonresidential customers at the wastewater enterprise. >> any discussion? any public comment in item 11? i have a motion to approve. all in favour? opposed? please read the closed session items. >> item 14, existing litigation. a proposed partia propose partif action as to property damage. numerous plaintiffs are remaining in litigation. a settlement amount of 28,000. item 15 as existing litigation.

a proposed settlement of action with the plaintiffs release of all actions of the city. the plaintiff amount of hundred 99,000. as a president mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, item 16-21 will not be heard today. >> it's or any public comment on matters to be addressed during closing? do i have a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the mitre -- items below? all appro

>> 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].

>> we think over 50 thousand permanent residents in san francisco eligible for citizenship by lack information and resources so really the project is not about citizenship but really academy our immigrant community. >> making sure they're a part of what we do in san francisco the san francisco pathway to citizenship initiative a unique part of just between the city and then our 5 local foundations and community safe organizations

and it really is an effort to get as many of the legal permanent residents in the san francisco since 2013 we started reaching the san francisco bay area residents and 10 thousand people into through 22 working groups and actually completed 5 thousand applications for citizenship our cause the real low income to moderate income resident in san francisco and the bayview sometimes the workshops are said attend by poem if san mateo and from sacking. >> we think over restraining order thousand legal permanent residents in san francisco that are eligible for citizenship but totally lack information and they don't have trained professionals culturally

appropriate with an audience you're working with one time of providing services with pro bono lawyers and trained professionals to find out whether your eligible the first station and go through a purview list of questions to see if they have met the 56 year residents arrangement or they're a u.s. citizenship they once they get through the screening they go to legal communication to see lawyers to check am i eligible to be a citizen we send them to station 3 that's when they sit down with experienced advertising to fill out the 4 hundred naturalization form and

then to final review and at the end he helps them with the check out station and send them a packet to fill and wait a month to 6 weeks to be invited in for an oral examine and if they pass two or three a months maximum get sworn in and become a citizen every single working groups we have a learning how to vote i mean there are tons of community resources we go for citizenship prep classes and have agencies it stays on site and this is filing out forms for people that are eligible so not just about your 22 page form but other community services and benefits there's an economic and safety

public benefit if we nationalize all people to be a citizen with the network no objection over $3 million in income for those but more importantly the city saves money $86 million by reducing the benefit costs. >> thank you. >> i've been here a loventh i already feel like an american citizen not felt it motorbike that needs to happen for good. >> one day - i pledge

allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, for liberty and justice for all. >> you're welcome. >> (singing). >> (clapping.) >> introduce the san francisco field officer director ribbon that will mirror the oath raise your hand and repeat the oath i hereby declare on oath repeating. >> citizens cry when they become citizenship to study this

difficult examine and after two trials they come back i'm an american now we're proud of that purpose of evasion so help me god please help me welcome seven hundred and 50 americans. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> she wants to be part of the country and vote so much puppy. >> you know excited and as i said it is a long process i think that needs to be finally recognized to be integrated that is basically, the type of that i see myself being part of.

>> out of everybody on tv and the news he felt that is necessary to be part of community in that way i can do so many things but my voice wouldn't count as it counts now. >> it's everybody i hoped for a bunch of opportunities demographics and as you can see yourself there's a good life for everyone. >> that's why. >> you have people from all the walks that life and they're standing in water 8 hours to be

an american citizen and contribute to the city and that's really what makes this worthwhile. >> ♪ ♪