associated with adverse health effects, yet the f.a.a. and s.f.o. are operating within a 65-decibel weighted average. so the cmeo lines they are talking about is not an accurate measure of noise disturbance. they are not. the s.f.o. and f.a.a. are causing physical and psychological harm to people of the city. they are flying well below what was demonstrated as the average altitude. you can ask pilots and air traffic control, and they don't hit land until about 3,000 or 3,500 feet in san francisco, and this is the average. our communities are subsidizing cheap airfares, and we are not expendable for the industry's financial savings. the f.a.a. said it would add 32 flying miles to fly over the golden gate bridge, which is one of the reasons they say yes, and i say so what, as well. and so we aren't responsible, essentially, for financing the

airline industry with our lives. it would cost less than $1 per passenger, about $160 total for the extra fuel to do this maneuver. if the s.f.o. can allocate a million dollars to art this year, we can certainly request they consider allocating resources to mitigate human rights abuses caused by their industry. thank you so much. >> my name is judith keenan. i'm a resident of the bayview. it is stunning to me that we even have to have this fight. our cities north of s.f.o. and neighborhoods here in the southeast corner of san francisco have become sacrificial lambs to profit. here are a few questions that have been asked before and never answered. why was there no environmental impact report done before the f.a.a. ruled out next gen, and why were there no public hearings held?

if profit is the motive and the airlines have said they will save over $3 billion with next gen technology, there will be no end to the destruction of our communities. it will only get worse. it is not the responsibility of communities to save the airlines billions of dollars. it is the responsibility of city, state, and national governments to protect its people, and if congress is the only entity who can fix this, we, cities and states, have given away too much power. conflicting roles. the f.a.a. has been cited as an example of regulatory capture in which the airline industry openly dictates to its regulators its governing rules, arranging for not only beneficial regulation, but placing key people to head these regulators. >> hello. i have been living in district

11 for the past 29 years, same address. i used to be able to leave my windows open. i can no longer do that. this morning at 6:00 a.m., i woke up by jet noise. it's not just departure. it's also arrivals that come around our neighborhood, and that's not fair. this is not a nice way to wake up in the morning. i thank safai for taking the leadership in this matter. really, this is great, we have some support, and i hope somebody is listening to us and takes some action. thank you. >> hi, my name is charlie wambach. i've been living in my residence, living in san francisco all my life, but my residence over 51 years. i hear more flights in one day now than i heard in the first 48 years combined, okay? this happened about 25 or 30 years ago, we had a lot of

flights come over our house. did it for about two weeks, then it stopped, because i think so many people kicked up a fuss. maybe we had something to do about it. i'm glad they mentioned the $3 billion of savings. most of that savings is passenger savings, passenger time savings, okay? it's not airline fuel and stuff like that. it's passenger time, so they are counting that as savings. all right. flights come over our house, as they do, a lot of them, we have one track over our house, they have a track over visitation valley, brisbane, and i saw a flight the other night, i can watch it on my computer, going to new jersey. came over san francisco, went down the peninsula, down past san jose, and then headed east. there's no reason for that. not at 11:00, 12:00, 1:00 in the morning. and flight typically go to miami, flights that go to washington, d.c., they come over san francisco. there's no reason for them to come over san francisco.

not unlike what supervisor safai said, it's not just san francisco airport, it's oakland airport. they are all coming over. so, you know, i don't think a flight at any height is acceptable. i know a lot of the things are fly higher, you know, fly less frequently and stuff like that. you know, a flight at 13,000 feet is still annoying if they are coming over every few minutes, so, you know, if they didn't come over before for 48 years, i don't know why in the last two years we have to be bombarded like this it. thank you. >> good evening, my name is jennifer landisman and i'm a neighbor from the palo alto area, and i want to thank you for this hearing, and i'm a little bit out of breath, because i'm a little bit late and i ran from the parking over here. my focus is the part 150 study. i've been working on this issue as a private citizen and part of the regional process with the select committee, which you may

have heard of, and i see this problem is a very big communication problem. and you have a very powerful role in all of this, and so does the airport, and i appreciate greatly what everybody has been trying to do. but among the communication tools you have are things like the part 150 study. to give you an idea, we never heard of the part 150 study during the select committee process when it was happening during the 2015-2016 area. time. and so we couldn't provide input. recently there is a new comment period, and when i look added ae study, i would urge you to use the tools, the studies that we have. certainly, you need more studies. we know that we need a different metric. the airports can choose to use supplemental metrics, so i urge you to see where you can influence and use these tools like the part 150 study, the select committee, all of these

areas of engagement at the f.a.a., and i do think that there are potential solutions. but we really have to work harder on that piece. thank you. >> thank you. my name is sabrice and i live in the sunset by the golden gate park, and i had a study done with the s.f.o. office, and we have about 200 planes flying over our heads every day. and when it rains, it can reach as high as 215, because the rivers flow. so i recall all the things that have been said so far, but the arrivals are also very important. we are straight under the bodega flight paths coming from the north, and those are planes coming every two and three minutes. and even at 10,000 feet, it's very troubling. and we're also right on the part of those big, large

transatlantic flights. [ please stand by ]

>> if you don't, that's fine. if you wanted to just listen, okay. >> elizabeth lewis. chair of the san francisco airport roundtable. i have been on as a member for about eight or nine years now. and we have been working really hard to engage the f.a.a. and we were doing pretty well for a while but then the administration turned over. they were supposed to come to our roundtable on wednesday night. we got noticed -- noticed that because there is a day of mourning for the former president, george h. butch george bush, the fap dish f.a.a. would not come. we are closing in on getting them to really work with us and our team of consultants and our members to help modify some of the flight patterns. i feel that they are hearing our

residence, they are hearing our elected officials. we are all working really hard to have them work with us. it is a huge organization. we are not alone in this. it is nationwide. there are residents all over the country that are experiencing this next jen bombardment, and the creating of railroad tracks in the sky where there hadn't -- where there had been peace and quiet in the past. i think that the groundswell, and i feel george feel like i am good friends with charlie and jennifer and these people because they come every roundtable and they tell heartbreaking stories. i think that we have to have

hope and we are going to make some changes because we have good people like you, anyway. i just want to give a little bit more hopeful spin on it. it is a long haul. thank you for having me. >> thank you. thank you. we also wanted to call up, just because she has been so tenacious on the issue, congresswoman jackie spear tried to offload dish just office, is kathleen here? i'm not sure if you made it. if we can call up john murray from senator feinstein's office. thank you vice chair for recognizing these errors. we will claim her too always regardless of where she domiciles. she began in san francisco and rose from san francisco. we will claim her and we are very proud to have her as part

of this fight. she signed a letter as well with senator feinstein. anyway. thank you. if you will just say a few words about some of the letters you submitted and the position of your boss, that would be great. >> thank you. the senator shares her concerns regarding the noise burden for california residents created by the next generation system. >> lift the microphone up a little. you are taller. >> sorry. >> there you go. >> is that better? >> yes. >> she has been weighing in on this issue since 2014. it was wrote in 2016 re: northern california specifically in asking the f.a.a. to take practical steps to address these noise impacts on residents in the bay area. we wrote again in 2017. that was focused on the southern california metroplex but we did refer to what was going on in the bay area as well.

i don't believe we received a response to the 2017 letter. [laughter] >> we wait in on the reauthorization for the f.a.a. and asked for the host of noise mitigation measures that were in the reauthorization and we supported those, and now we are planning on keeping up with the f.a.a. and making sure that they use what discretion they have two follow up with those authorities and that discretion that they have to address those measures. >> thank you. i wanted to say on the record, i really appreciate the letter you wrote. my office wrote a letter to you and congresswoman pelosi and asked them to consider the cystic departure, the cross and particularly the crossover and rethinking the nexgen process.

there is only one community director that was able to challenge environmental impacts of this during the comment period and that was phoenix. they were able to stop the implementation of nexgen. we missed our opportunity in the bay area. it was done in such a way that people did not really realize what was happening at the time. but phoenix is a good model. i wanted to say on the record, if she could continue to make this a priority. it is a big priority for the residents of san francisco and our commission and our board see eye to eye on this. there is something different, and you mentioned in the letter you wrote, the f.a.a. reauthorization that has not happened in a very long time. as i said, the abundance of riches in the leadership. and congress in both houses would be something very beneficial. we want to put that on the record that it is a priority for the citizens of san francisco that senator feinstein make this a priority and put pressure on the cystic departure and how the

next generation system negatively has been impacting san francisco. >> thank you. >> is david lott here? i reached out to the district director. it was a very short notice. we have doing what we can. we now have the former district director as a chief of staff of mayor breathed. he was very much engaged with responding with the let -- to the letter and rating with the letter of the senator and now we will have jim lazarus, the former -- the deputy vice chair of the chamber who will be the district director for senator feinstein. he was made aware of this. we appreciate you coming out and saying a few words. >> thank you for the invitation and holding this hearing. unfortunately, the district director could not make it but i'm here instead.

again, we share the concerns of many of the residents of san francisco and we understand that this has a huge impact on the community. we are here to listen and we have also submitted a letter to f.a.a. on january 29th 2018 this year and we are continuing to hold meetings with representatives of the f.a.a. to hold them accountable and we are requesting a study to understand the impact of changing the routes, and we are very interested in hearing what the community has to say. >> thank you. i will say for the record, same thing i said to senator feinstein's office and we already know we have congresswoman pelosi who said she is going to the mat on this issue.

having the speaker be in this position and i have conveyed this to the district director and we will lead to pelosi. i know commissioner guggenheim and others have conveyed to her that this is a super big priority. it is something that would happen. the impact has been so dramatic in san francisco that it is something that we want to bring to her attention now that she is assuming this, we have very high hopes for her to be able to influence this process. did you want to say something? >> i thought you were leaning toward the microphone. okay. thank you. >> okay. i have a few questions before we wrap up. i wanted to ask if that is okay through the chair.

first question,, the f.a.a. have the authority to abolish the cystic departure and go back to preet next generation? what they have that authority to do that? >> the f.a.a. would have that authority to revert back to a prior procedure. >> okay. and what do you think, and i know it is hard for you. >> sorry to interrupt. under the context of what they are meant -- what their mandate is under modernizing of the air traffic control system, but they did that in phoenix where they did go back to a priest nexgen operation. so i believe they would have that authority. >> and the airport shut down in phoenix when they went back to that. >> no. it is still operating. >> to things keep going on and business continue? >> yes. >> i just want to make sure. not to disguise this but i just

want to understand that it is possible to make that adjustment >> i believe so. >> okay good. from your professional opinion in terms of the flight ceiling, i know there is a request from folks and we had a conversation at the roundtable about a 10,00. i know one individual commenter said no ceiling would be -- is there an appropriate level? i know when we were monitoring one dublin street, it was usually between 3,205,000-foot maximum on the departure. what is your response to the 10,000-foot request? >> what i am imagining is that it changes, it would change the departure and swing them out into the open air space just to gain altitude so they would probably take a head much closer to oakland which would

potentially cause interference with the airspace. i think i can't answer it technically with 100% degree of certainty. i am imagining that that is what it would do to that. we certainly would provide an answer from the f.a.a. on how that could be achieved and what this impacts are. i imagine that is just not doable because of the integration of the air spaces between oakland, san jose and san francisco. >> so the averages between 3,205,000 and the request would be at 10,000. what is the maximum that would be doable? >> i couldn't comment until we looked at that. there was conflicting outage -- altitudes with southbound aircraft and in the eastbound and westbound. it is an intermingling of all of these flight tracks on different directions that have to hold

different altitudes to create the separation as demanded by f.a.a.'s safety. >> what about the take offs from oakland? i'm seeing a significant increase from the takeoffs and oakland and then passing over. does the f.a.a. have the ability to could they change the flight patterns of the departures and not cross over san francisco at such a high frequency as they have over the last couple of years? >> that would all have to be woven into the potential solutions. something that we are advocating for is a combined roundtable for the region. i had a meeting 1212 weeks ago with the other directors of oakland and san jose and presented -- i am on the forum, which is a quarterly meeting with f.a.a. leadership. to try and figure out how to reengage with the community and

deal with all of the issues and hopefully create some solutions. i think our approach would be through the regional community roundtable, to help with this work among all the airports? >> i have over emphasize the abundance of riches in terms of the elected leadership. i just want to hear from your perspective. what is the role that the leadership can take in this in terms of the f.a.a. authorization? that would be part one. and it would be how the airline industry and what role they have to play. this is one of the largest hubs for united. i know united cosigned a letter with you after congresswoman spear hosted the meeting went asking for the hush at the nighttime. at least we were able to engage in that level and really appreciate the congresswoman getting everyone's attention. but role rolled you think the elected leadership has to play

along with the airline industry? it seems to be those are the most influential when it comes to the f.a.a. >> under the f.a.a. reauthorization with the studies and in particular, i talked about the noise annoyance, what i would imagine is the consequences is so dramatic in terms of public health impacted in a much different way than it is currently defined for the dbc i imagine that is why they don't see the light of day. >> and i just need to interrupt you for a second. the study you are referring to is the m.i.t. noise study? >> they are two different noise study. >> there are several different ones. i think recognizing the consequences and dealing with the consequences in developing a program to address what comes

out of the noise annoyance, that is fundamental. they have results that are very much focused on benefiting a much broader community than the 65 -- i think it redefines how a communities impacted. >> it probably lowers the decibel level. >> since this was an internal study and this was a public agency, the commit -- they commissioned the study and they have not released the study. how do we get that study released and have access to it so the public can be informed and what the best direction is to take? >> under f.a.a. authorization, they are mandated for october of 2,000 -- 2,020 -- 2020 to have a plan and to answer that study to see the light of day. i believe they are obligated to release it, and this is the

obligation to deal with the consequences. so they are mandated. >> at the latest, they have to release it by october 2020. one was a study completed? >> it has probably been almost a year now until it was completed, i would imagine. >> that is something that we can ask our congressional leadership to get them to expedite. do you hear that commissioner guggenheim? we want the congressional leadership to put pressure on the f.a.a. to release the new a study that they have and that they are not giving up. >> commissioner guggenheim? >> will do the best we can. can i make one comment about the hearing today? i was born and raised in the city. i've lived here for a couple of years, 78 years. i want to thank the chair of this committee for seeing the quality of leadership that you

have been exhibiting. we will miss you. the city will miss you. you've been terrific. and supervisors, you have done a great job on this. obviously, i live in nob hill and if i don't hear the garbage shoots at various hotels, i hear the airplanes. i can't hear very well anymore either. i do hear that. i think i know the director and the staff are doing everything they can along with the commission to find a way to alleviate this. speaker pelosi, -- hopefully, she has been a lifelong friend of mine capture has been particularly. i will talk to her when i see her and i think with jim lazarus joining dianne feinstein and diane's longtime chair in the mirror's his office that the pressure will be put on. i can't remember what the power

has over the f.a.a. i would hope the f.a.a. director would come out here and spend a day or two in more or -- or more walking around the city so we can understand the personal anguish and it is just not right >> thank you for those comments. i appreciate that. we appreciate your commission engaging on this as well and the leadership director. in no way do i want to diminish the work that you are director has done on this. we really appreciate it. i think at some point -- let's boil it down to the simplicity and you get it on the head. when people can't sleep or people feel peace in their own home, when they did, and they always have, that is probably one of the most disruptive things that can happen in anyone 's life.

so sometimes you think about that. my house in particular, because it is near construction, it has more insulation and it has newer windows. but all of the surrounding in my district don't. most of them are built in the thirties. they didn't think about this. as a gentleman said back there was nothing. they do not build it to those standards. when you do now, on really foggy days, in particular, when i'm putting my kids down at night, account. it is like when you're teaching your kids not to be scared of lightning and you counter the difference between the thunder and the lightning. you sit there and count. and it is in every minute that the flights are flying over. we have more insulation and newer windows. in newer homes is disruptive to

say the least. thank you all for engaging on this. if there is any frustration, it is just because we feel like now we are at a turning point. we have the ability to do something with the abundance of riches in political leadership and you all are included in that i appreciate you all engaging. did you want to say something? >> you actually would have led into which. i'm curious with everything that has been presented so far about the timing and the noise and the amount, how much does weather play in this? is the noise significant during a sunny day or a foggy day or a rainy day, do we have more impact one way or the other? >> i went defer to the director. and often times when we have really bad weather, they shut one of the runways down. >> and depending upon wind and that sort of thing. i am just curious, generally speaking, do we have a weather factor here?

>> sound travels differently depending on the temperature. so when you talk about whether temperature wise it could have probably not a significant effect -- >> that's not my question. my question was, whether the same flight patterns are the same during foggy or rainy weather or does this new next-generation system change when the weather changes, and i'll be curious to know whether that makes the impact of the sound worse or better. >> we go into what is the southeast plan. about 15% of the time, what i described for most of the impact , the residents of san francisco was at 80 5% of times in norm or just normal operations.

when we get into a southwest plan when we have seven storms that that kind of thing, we go into a different -- a whole different operation that has benefit to some communities that suffer under the 80 5% plan, but then has impacts to other communities that don't have that same impact. there is an effect on whether wind is the primary driver too when we go into a straight 28 operation. when we go into that, these folks in the southern part tension not really benefits because then all of the flights go out of the gap. within the focus of daly city and san bruno and south city bear more of the impact. it does move around depending on weather. >> okay. i was just curious about that factor. thank you. >> thank you commissioners for your comments. i do not want to lose that point i want to overemphasize its.

this noise study has been done by the f.a.a. and sitting there for one year. as part of the reauthorization of the budget, they have to release it by the fall of 2020. and i think asking the congressional leadership to release it well in advance of that would have a significant impact on this conversation. thank you director for overemphasizing that. that will be a big first step in terms of some of the things. in a perfect world, i would like to see the possibility of the cystic door system abolished. and going back and fanning out the procedures. i think i would also be informed by the noise study. >> i don't have any other questions at this time. i do want to say for the record, to overemphasize this point. we try to do this later in the day, as well as to coordinate with our airport commissioner schedules. i did host a town hall at balboa high school. thank you for attending that.

it meant a lot to the residents of our district. we do have a significant number of working families. if we did this on a saturday where we did it later in the evening, this entire chamber would be filled. i just want to say that for the record. based on the amount of e-mails and phone calls and outreach and heard from over the time. the folks that are here, we appreciate you coming out to attend. and/or representative organizations that have a significant number of people whose voices they are channeling here today. we will continue to follow up with ms. miss lewis. we will continue to work with commissioners and we will work with the abundance of riches and leadership that we have emanating from san francisco.

all the other ones that have engaged on this issue and contending actors continue to work with members of the board of supervisors and representatives from the community. we feel like we are taking small steps but making progress. i believe that we will see some results that will be positive to the impact of people his lives. i thank everyone for coming out today. [applause] >> we can make a motion to file the hearing. >> okay. i join you in thinking the commissioners and the directors. there is a motion to file a hearing and we will do that without objection. madam clerk, are there any other items for us today? >> there is no further business. >> all right. this meeting is adjourned.

>> the hon. london breed: well, i know the road to get here wasn't easy, but we all came together to make sure that we provide the support that will make hopefully a difference in what you receive in your paychecks. this discussion started over a year ago at the board of supervisors and it's one that i'm committed to. thanks to the tireless work and dedication of everyone here today, we now have an ordinance that will create a path to success for those who take care of our most vulnerable communities. this starts first with our in

home support services workers. these are people who support our seniors and persons with disabilities so they can remain in their homes and in their communities. they help with tasks that we often take for granted, like getting groceries or taking a bath or going to the doctor. i know personally about the importance of this difficult work and how challenging it can be. it was in home support services workers who took care of my grandmother when she could no longer take care of herself. we have more than 20,000 workers who support 22,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities in san francisco. and if it was not for this important work, these individuals do every day so many of our seniors and difficults living with disabilities would not be able to stay in their homes and get the care that we know they need.

in addition to our in home support services workers, we have many nonprofit organizations who provide essential services in san francisco to those of all income levels and backgrounds. this ranges from homelessness to workforce development, housing, domestic violence prevention to child care and so many others. these workers are on the front lines of taking care of our most vulnerable communities, our in home support services and nonprofit workers provided tremendous support and care for so many throughout san francisco, but they often are paid the least and, like so many of our residents, are too often struggling to get by in an expensive city like san francisco. san francisco has always demonstrated a commitment in supporting our lowest wage workers. when the governor significantly

reduced financial support to counties for in home support services programs, san francisco stepped up to fill in that gap. we have led the way in raising our minimum wage to one of the highest in the country, and we are continuing that leadership today with this legislation. the negotiations were difficult, very difficult, and they were long, but that's because we all knew the importance of making sure that everyone had a seat at the able in this conversation. as a result, we have an ordinance that reflects our commitment in taking care of what are the lowest wage earners in san francisco and moving them to a better place although we know they deserve a lot more. our in home support service workers will see a wage increase of $3.75 from their current wage over the course of next five

years. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: the minimum ordinance will also raise the wages of our cities, contracted nonprofit workers for $1.50 over their current wage effective july 1 of 2019. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: and we should also mention the minimum compensation ordinance and how it's impacted the airport workers and their increase. this is part of my commitment as mayor to make sure that all san franciscans have equal access to opportunities and can live in the communities they serve. san francisco has some of the highest paying jobs in the nation, but we need to make sure that our economic success doesn't leave low and middle-income families behind. by harnessing our thriving economy, we can lift up those communities who have been left behind for far too long and give

them opportunities to succeed. this includes investing in why we are here today, and i am just really grateful for your hard work and the work that you continue to do to take care of so many of our elderly and disabled folks throughout san francisco. and at this time, i'd like to bring up supervisor sandy fewer, who was a lead sponsor on this legislation. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mayor breed. i'd like to thank a couple of people here today that actually helped to make this happen. of course our labor partners and their leaders here today. suiu 1021 and 1015. without their urging and direction, i don't think this would have happened, and their tenacity, actually to stay at the table. i'd also like to thank my cosponsors, supervisor ronen,

yee, and kim, and to recognize with us today supervisor jeff sheehy who actually started this conversation. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: and then, i would also like to take a moment to thank our mayor, mayor breed, and her wonderful staff who came back again and again and again at the table to come to an agreement to serve these workers in san francisco. i am honored to have helped create this legislation and to be part of this historic moment. this legislation is important for three reasons: one, the immediate relief that it will give to over 20,000 of our low wage workers. these workers who take care of our elderly, our disabled, people who staff our nonprofits, they are struggling to make ends meet in this city, and who are they? they make $15 an hour in our city. the average age of 58 years old,

and 78% of them are women, and almost 80% of them are people of color. they are on the verge of homelessness themselves. second, this legislation demonstrates that we value this workforce. they do important necessary work that binds our community together, at that allows our seniors and disabled to age in their own homes and with greater health out comes and also to greater mobility. and so i think it's so important that this legislation actually lifts up the work that they do, and the city as a whole recognizes how important that work is. and third, this reinforces our commitment to seniors and people with disabilities, children and their families, and we are planning for the future of our senior population that will increase 69% from 2010 to 2030. this, to be frank, is not a living wage in san francisco. this will give workers some

relief, but this is definitely not a living wage in san francisco. we are experiencing the largest wealth gap that we have ever had historically in san francisco, and these workers will continue to struggle as they do their hard work. this legislation today actually gives them some relief, but let's just be frank. it is not a living wage here in san francisco. i think it's important to do this, because this is the right thing to do. in a city where the economy is booming, where some of our low-income and moderate wage workers wh workers should have a piece of the pie. we don't leave anyone in this city behind, people who makeup the fabric of what san francisco is and who we are. this is a bold statement, and i just want to honor everyone who was at the table and thank you to mayor breed and her staff once again for coming to this agreement. i'd like to take a moment, also,

to introduce my colleague, hillary ronen, who was so instrumental working with me on this legislation. supervisor ronen? [applause] >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, supervisor fewer. i just wanted to make two quick points. thank you to the mayor. one of your biggest budget commitments that you've made to this workforce says a lot about your values, and we just want to thank you so much for that incredible, incredible commitment. and then, number two, this piece of legislation really shows and reminds us what san francisco is all about. not only do we do the morally right thing by our incredible workers who give so much love and support to our seniors and our homeless population, and so many who are struggling to survive here in san francisco, but this legislation is smart planning. we have an exploding senior

population in san francisco, and we don't have the infrastructure to take care of this population. we have a homeless crisis raging in our streets, and we depend on nonprofits who aren't able to hire the workforce to take care of those struggling the most. this legislation is so forward thinking, and that's what san francisco is known for. we have the heart but also the brain to do the right thing and to think about our future. so congratulations, everyone. this is a wonderful, wonderful day, and a huge round of applause to my colleague, supervisor fewer, who is a fighter through and through. and it was so fun to work with her on this lemgislation. >> supervisor fewer: and now i'd like to introduce from the labor council rudy gonzales. [applause] >> good morning. i have to tell you that there are a lot of things that are left unfinished. it's important, coming from the

labor movement where miners and long shore men were murdered in this city for standing together. wow, is it a sign of the times that our workers were able to stand together from electricians to teachers, airport workers, everybody stood shoulder to shoulder to make sure this important legislation was realized. i want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our labor council. without their leadership and mentorship of this council, we wouldn't have been able to do this. we're used to be attacked, or used to being the resistance in a moment of resistance. it's okay to celebrate these wins. we have a lot of thing that we disagree on policy wise, but this is a statement of value, and a time to celebrate because the lowest paid people in our city are getting the attention and commitment of this fine government, and this is an example of people coming to a

table with leadership, an initiative that was started 18 months, when some people weren't even in elected office at the time and coming together and saying we're going to pick up the pieces, we're going to do our hard work and commit our staff, our hard work, our budget, and our values to the people who need it the most. when i say the people who need it most, i want to talk about the clients. we talk about our ageing population, but there are disabled children that need care. some of the most null verbal in our city who need -- vulnerable in our city who need addiction treatment and housing services and supportsive services, they're being supported not only by our city workers in our city, but our nonprofit workers. i want to take a moment to recognize the incredible leadership of our mayor, mayor breed, who took this issue head on. [applause] >> supervisors fewer and ronen

and supervisor yee, and everyone who voted to support this. supervisor kim, obviously. without people at the team and everybody in the supervisors' office who are dedicated to seeing this thing through, and all the courageous workers, that would not have been possible. i want to introduce you to one of the courageous workers, one of the people who gets this work done, claudia, will you join me? claudia is a 25 year inhome health worker, and i wanted to let her say a few words about what she does. >> yeah. [speaking spanish language]

>> yes. as rudy was saying, my name is claudia, and i'm an in home support care services worker. i've been doing this work for 25 years. of those 25 years, i've been involved in the union movement 22 of those years. i'm so excited to be here today. this is a historic moment today as mayor breed signs this legislation that will have a huge impact on our lives. >> yes. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> i also want to recognize the incredible and fierce leadership

of several boards of supervisors who because of their leadership, we were able to get to this final deal. i feel like as a home care service worker that finally our work is being recognized, that we do have dignity and respect. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> i remember when mayor breed met with many of us workers of home care, and she actually has a home care story, as well, and she understands how difficult this work is, so i was not surprised when she made a decision to support this

legislation. [applause] [speaking spanish language] >> and i just want to remind everyone, without a doubt, this has a tremendous impact on the roughly 20,000 home care providers here in san francisco, but the day after the election, this also sends a message that the city and county of san francisco has created a new standard for home care providers. that message will be sent across the country, across the region and throughout the state of california. thank you, si se puede. [speaking spanish language] >> thank you, again, mayor and supervisors for your support and for your understanding and valuing the important work that we do. thank you. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> the hon. london breed: thank you all so much. and i'd like to also recognize other supervisors who have

joined us today. it was a unanimous vote at the board of supervisors, including the leadership of the president of the board of supervisors, malia cohen is here. along with supervisor safai and supervisor yee. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: now, let's get to the important task, and i'm going to ask former supervisor jeff sheehy to join us as the original sponsor of this legislation as we sign this very important piece of legislation to guarantee the commitment that we are making as a city for inhome support services workers and nonprofit workers in san francisco. thank you all so much for being here today.

[applause]