we have had a campaign of education and alert. we've advocated for years, and others have done as well to have a no fine or the system. [please stand by]

>> president yee: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is wallace lee, and i'm here about seawall 330 and the navigation center proposed for that site. we're just a small number here today, to talk about this, only about 15 people, but we represent over 500 people in

this group. we're opposed against the lack of transparency to build the largest navigation center there. the site is bordered by a massive apartment complex and two condo buildings. the neighborhood is densely populated, and the population has increased by 26% in the last five years. the number of children in the neighborhood -- this is a census tract -- has gone up 50% in the last five years. it's increasingly a place for families with children.

[inaudible] >> yes. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm here also to talk about the proposed navigation center. i'm a homeowner at 219 brannan, roughly two blocks from the proposed site. i also own a clean energy company in district six that's created over 5,000 jobs in california. i strongly oppose this proposal. this is not a nimby issue, this is another issue. let me ask you two questions. what will be the cost to our city to locate a navigation

center with a documented increase increased drug use, trash, where thousands of people travel to work, where thousands of fans travel to at&t park and soon to chase center, and where they host thousands of tourists along that iconic walk from at&t to the ferry building? what will be the cost to locate a navigation center in such a densely populated family neighborhood? we have more child care centers in district six than any other districts in the city. this is not, by the way, in the five radius of the proposed center, not a hub of homelessness. we must know the answers to these questions before proceeding further. we do not want to look back and wish that we did know those answers. on the process, i agree, this

first proposal was known to the community on march 4. that's just a little over two weeks ago. to say we were blindsided is an understatement. there's been no data on why this center should be located at the -- lot 330 and why the other 99 sites have been eliminated. our community deserves to see the criteria used. >> president yee: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you. my name is william glasgow. i'm a resident at a condo at brannan and delancey, and i echo the comments of the prior two speakers in opposition to the proposed navigation center on the embarcadero. i won't repeat the points they made, but i would focus on unwith. i believe our opposition is not about homelessness or the homeless. we recognize homelessness as a

very serious problem for the city, and i think we share great empathy and passion for those that are homeless. and it's not about the not in my back yard syndrome. we live around the corner from the delancey foundation, which houses at least 200 residents who have -- are dealing with the prior challenge of drug addiction, alcoholism, and criminal activity, and we welcome them in our community because it's in a very controlled manner. so our dissent is about the specific location and how it came to be. it doesn't seem there's been a transparent process. there also hasn't been anything with regard to the cast.

i understand the city is for these navigation centers. i'm not going to challenge that, but i think when you evaluate the location, i think you have to cross-reference that with what the costs or challenges will be. i've seen nothing in the public record that that analysis has been made or if it were made, this site would be the least problematic site to house one of those locations. thank you. >> hello. my name is jean lions. i've lived in south beach for 20ers i can' 20 years. i want to talk about respect. two weeks ago i myself canvassed 18 businesses, none of them knew about it. i'm talking about safeway to walgreens to the american cheese company. we continue as neighbors to let both our other neighbors know as well as the businesses. to think that a 225 bed

homeless shelter is going to be down in the embarcadero area, in the seawall area, that includes drug use, pet, partners, and the fact that it's going to be a magnet for other homeless encampments, to think that would not impact the quality of life for the residents there as well as the businesses. if you have attended the two meetings that happened last week at the port as well as the delancey street gathering, you would have found our neighbors talking about children being tested for h.i.v. because of the needle tricks that they experience while playing, or the neighbor who is a lawyer who is litigating two wrongful death suits because of homeless. i could go on. the other thing is dues. district six already has a navigation center in our area. what about the other districts in the city? i think that this location in terms of its cost-benefit

analysis and what it could do for the city for many people who need housing like nurses and firemen and others as well as the types of things we could do with that as well as where we could put it should be considered. thank you. >> supervisors, may i ask for your kind attention, please. my name is christy scorvano. i live at 38 bryant street, and regarding the navigation center on seawall lot 330, this is directly across from the building that has been my home for the last eight years, and it's 20 yards away from my three-year-old son's bedroom. i'm gravely concerned about the impact it will have on families, particularly my son who i plan to send to san francisco schools. i'm a working mother who you can wi can -- who walks to and from

work each other, mostly in the dark. the proposal was sprung on district six with very little notice, and it seems as though public officials are racing to put it through before most of the neighbors in my district know about it. it's clear that this navigation center is being pushed ahead with very dill due diligence on the people of the neighborhood, and civic leaders are truly neglecting to understand the impact it will have on such a large population of families in the area. over the last eight years, i've observed the number of families in my neighborhood sky rocket, with at least 25 schools and daycare providers within walking distance of the center. if the proposal is approved, my concern is around the increase in the number of people the area will attract, particularly drug dealers, drug users, and sounds from sirens and street sounds, which makes it an

unattractive area to raise my child, and we will have to move out of the city. >> i am a resident of the south beach neighborhood, and i strongly oppose the navigation center or what i would more properly call the megahomeless center. i have grave health and safety concerns about putting a 225-bed homeless center in a densely populated residential area, 10,000 residents, several thousand families with childre children. the mayor and the supervisors are racing to push this forward without any input from the residents of the neighborhood and trampling on our rights.

this has only become public as the chronicle broke the story a week ago. the mayor and the city are frankly trying to ignore all the existing health and environmental zoning laws to simply ram this center in south beach and soma, with no regard to health. i like living in san francisco and its views on a liberal democracy. there needs to be adequate time to assess whether or not there are better places for this. again, we are a densely populated area. there are thousands of small children in soma and south beach. small children are uniquely vulnerable to homeless shelters, many of which are populated by those who have mental health problems, substance abuse problems, and violent parolees.

we also have experience with homeless in south beach. a neighbor was the victim of a violent invasion by a homeless person. another neighbor's having their six-month-old toddler being tested for h.i.v. after being tricked by a needle. a -- pricked by a needle. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon, everyone. my name is sarah lee, and i'm a community advocate at the asian law caucus, and i am here in support of the resolution that -- [inaudible] >> as some of you may already know, there were four community members that were detained last week at the san francisco i.c.e. building, and i want to up date you all, i.c.e. is

required to provide advance notice to those who are currently being redetained. currently, there are 50 cambodyians around the country who were specifically directed to turn themselves in at the san francisco i.c.e. offices. we look forward to working with supervisors who look forward to working with the asian community, and working with governor newsom to pardon. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, next. i'm here with sarah to support mr. walton regarding our -- this initiative to support southeast asian community.

i was a refugee with my family coming to this country when i was a toddler, and many of my community have a similar situation. we came here when we were kids. this is the only country we ever knew. unfortunately, most of us grew up in the neighborhood where there's a lot of trauma, a lot of violence, a lot of poverties and drugs, and we got in trouble when we were kids, and have been through the system. a lot of us have currently changed our lives, and are working with the community on different levels. what we're finding now is we're continuing to be ripped apart from our families after three generations, and we're still experiencing this now today. i was one of those individuals who got out of prison -- went to prison when i was shoul14, out of prison in my later years, eventually found work as a counselor. i work as an advocate for my

community, to provide rehabilitation for prison services to try to change people's lives. i'm also fortunate to working with governor brown, asking the supreme court for a pardon, and it was rejected for the court -- by the court without any explanation. right now, members of the community are still being detained and i'm hoping that san francisco could help us deal with this -- this really widespread -- i'm going to say for lack of a better word, just pain, continued pain, continued suffering, and will continue to do this for all communities. so we're hoping that we could have some kind of resolution to help our community. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon and thank you, and help owe, supervisor haney. i am janet lawson. i really hope we can have a conversation later on. i moved into district six in 1995, when my only neighbors

were the pigeons and the rats who ate them. since then, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars both public and private have been poured into the area to make it a premier residential tourist and entertainment district, which is why no one can understand the logic of selecting that particular parcel to build london town. i've worked in a public -- work for a public affairs firm. i know how community outreach works, and there was none of that there. we've gotten no answers to some very specific questions. the lack of transparency and honest city in all of this has -- honesty has undermined all of this, and it's coming across as nothing more than a

trumpian attempt by mayor breed to fulfill her campaign promise at any cost, no matter the cost. it's being forced upon us. it is a very foolish thing to do in this area. this is a tourist center. this doesn't make sense. i'd like to see one in the upper haight or perhaps lowell heights or maybe even the mission -- the marina, maybe by the presidio. there's a lot of places in the city. there is no logical reason to select this -- this location except for it's actually her ego. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hello. my name's judy dundas, and we've been neighbors of this district since 2008. the city has not communicated with the neighbors adequately

on this matter. the first meeting was vague, short on substance and totally inadequate. if the city is intending on building navigation centers in all areas across our district, you must make the following data available for neighbors to support it. the impact of navigation centers on surrounding neighbors. what is the change in the homeless population before and after? what is the changing crime rate? what is the changing incidents of loitering? what are 200 people going to do during the day who are unemployed and they are homeless? what are they going to do? they have to go somewhere? what do those who use drugs do when they continue to use drugs? what are the percentage that are mentally ill? second, i actually wonder if this is solving a problem for

our neighborhood. if you have not walked around in south beach, go there for a couple of hours. i run every day, and walk down to the downtown every day, and i see maybe two homeless people. how is a 200-bed homeless shelter solving our problem? isn't it going to allow 220 something people to come into our neighborhood? please don't ram this down or throat. please work with us to put a solution that actually helps our neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> my name is josh clip. i'm a resident of district ten, attorney. relevant to today, the proud son of a mother who overcame polio to put herself through college, raise four kids, work

40 years as a social worker and now volunteers tirelessly at homeless shelters around san francisco. relative to what i want to speak about today, i am a long time planting leader with friends of the urban forest. i am here today regarding if the board passes a plan of emergency, that the department of environment be given at least one person in their department who is focused on our urban cap onopy. right now, there is nobody at the department of urban environment to look at that issue. san francisco has the worst urban canopy in the united states. trees aren't the answer to climate change, but we can't do it without them because they filter harmful air particulate, they are a habitat for our increasingly fragile eco system. they make it desirable to walk rather than drive, and they are

a necessary part of climate justice. i would urge the board to instruct the department of the environment how an aggressive forestation plan can be implemented to support our common goals. additionally, at supervisor mandelman's suggestion, i have already created a plan with some cost-free actions that we can take right now and have a few copies of the plan for the board, and i also offer myself as a resource, if that may be helpful. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hello. i've been living in south beach marina apartments for 17 years. i don't need to repeat that, but i strongly oppose the shelter on the parking lot 330 due to the fact that when i'm going up and down the

embarcadero where i walk my dog, on any given day, i see about 40 homeless people standing between giants stadium and pier 39. which brings me to the fact that maybe i missed some. out of 225 shelter beds, that means 175 will be imported from other districts, that they are not here today. they are not from our district at all. why don't you put it in other places? for example, there's a lot of homeless people in civic center. why don't you build it on the lawn in front of city hall? they're here any ways? that's what we were told? or why don't you utilize building in san francisco general hospital and turn it into hospital for mental patients? it would be permanent solution, not just temporary solution. this is not solving anything. this is going to destroy the neighborhood.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is maria papadopolous. i live in the district six, and my family lives two blocks away from the navigation center. this is the right idea, wrong place. we already have numerous homeless shelters in our district. let the people of district six decide if we want to be the guinea pigs of such a large, unprecedented experiment. clarity. be transparent, don't ram this down our threats. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hi. my name's garrett lerau. i've lived at south beach for 15 years, and my issue here is the density of the homeless centers. what are 200 people going to do during the daytime in this

homeless center -- or this navigation center, sorry. there aren't facilities on the street. there's only one kiosk toilet on the embarcadero there. there's the brannan street wharf that has a dozen tables, but that's not going to handle 200 people wandering the streets every day. it just seems way out of proportion for what it should be in our area. people have talked. we feel we're doing our part. maybe you don't feel, but we've got homeless shelters, we've got halfway houses, supportive housing, subsidized apartments. we've worked for 15 years to build a nice neighborhood here, and it works. and i think putting this large a navigation center there is just -- is just too much for the neighborhood. i've got to another meeting this morning, and the women that -- with children in the neighborhood are just -- are

going nuts? how are they going to raise kids with this type of influence wandering the neighborhood? those are my thoughts. appreciate your support. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hi. good afternoon. thank you so much. my name is shawnna heffernan. i am a san francisco native. i've been a nurse for almost a decade, and most of my time i have spent here in the city and in reno and sacramento area. and i thank you so much for your unanimous support of the medicare for all campaign. i know that you know all of the details of why this is logical, and we kind of live in a country where logic is not the basis of our political federal decision making, it seems, but i want to tell you something that maybe you haven't heard from a nursing perspective? which is that i do surgical

recovery. so most americans will need not one but two surgeries in their lifetime. the average copayment with insurance is $500 and without can be 5,000, $20,000. most americans don't have $400 in the bank in savings for an emergency. it's someone that everyone needs and no one can afford. it's absolutely pivotal that we start here in san francisco and send it to the california level and send a strong message to our federal government for a medicare for all system. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is carolyn bowden. i'm also with the california nurses association, national nurses united, and i am here just to thank you so much for your leadership. i was hoping that you could be the second city, but cambridge, massachusetts passed it last

night. seattle passed it last night, but i thank you for your consistent leadership on this issue and many other progressive issues and san francisco leads, and you are exemplary in that leadership. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> my name is john patchner. i'm a san francisco native. i live at 239 brannan street, and i'm sorry, but you're going to hear it one more time. i had the privilege of living in the south beach neighborhood in the mid90's, and there was nothing there then. there was no baseball stadium, there were no condos, there were no restaurants, there were crumbling warehouses, and yes, there were homeless people, but even then, it seemed like a spectacular neighborhood. we, my wife and young son were able to buy a house in another part of the city.

there was no housing in that area, and four years ago when we had the opportunity to move back, we did. a lot of work has gone into keeping that to be a splendid neighborhood, and i would -- i would plead with you that as you do your jobs to find a site for homeless services that -- that you keep in mind for one principle. having worked for an elected official, i know that politics and governance is not always about politics, it's not expediency. i would ask you to do this: do no harm to the neighborhood in fulfilling your obligations to site any homeless center. there is in the hippocratic

oath, that provision, do no harm. i plead with you to take that into consideration. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. [applause] >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm a resident of district six, and my wife and i oppose the proposed navigation center on the seawall lot 330. we acknowledge we have a homeless problem and we want to solve it with kindness and dignity. today, the board approved two legislations that will increase the number of homeless folk in our neighborhood, so we already have a -- we already have too many homeless folk, and somehow, the solution is to add another 225 homeless folk there. it's like what? that's utterly insane. i respectfully urge the board to introduce legislation

mandating a public vetting process for all navigation centers in the city. thank you. have a good evening. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> hello. my name's mark dragan. i've been a long time resident of south beach for 15 years. i live 1.5 blocks away, and i'm opposed to the navigation center. i've seen the area turnaround from being a sketchy area to one it is today, where mothers can walk along the street. just yesterday, i saw a toddler learning to walk, trying to walk, and falling down, not worrying about feces or needles on the street. the danger is you're introducing a large navigation center, the largest in the city's history, with no idea what the implications are going to be. there's the potential to turn

this area back to what it was 15 years ago. you are the person who stands between the city's wayward action and protecting this community. they're looking to you, supervisor, to keep them free of fear. they're looking to you to keep them safe. you did them no favors by blindly supporting the navigation center that the may mayor announced without fully undering what -- understanding what it means to the neighborhood, a navigation center this large. you did no favors when you bypassed the normal permitting process for navigation centers. if this community falls back to where it was 20 years ago, it's going to be your political legacy, so i want you to frankly do the job of protecting the neighborhood, and take note of how many people are here. they had to wait 2.5 hours to speak. we waited through a lot of other proceedings. half the people had to leave

because they couldn't wait that long, to take that into consideration when you weigh the quality of life of homeless people versus the quality of life of people who are here, who are willing to give up this time. thank you. [applause] >> hello, supervisors. i live a block away from the homeless center that you're proposing. i am vehemently opposed to this navigation center. this would be the largest center with the longest lease in a neighborhood with thousands of residents. there was not the -- this was not the intent of the navigation centers that i learned about. they were supposed to be small and focused. if anything, the center should go through additional scrutiny based on these factors alone. i ask that you use this time to try to find a more appropriate place for the center. thank you. [applause] >> clerk: before the next

speaker begins his comment, just for the members in the public gallery, we have a board rule that you are not to make any noises of support or against. if you're in support, you can use your supportive hands like that. board rules prohibit any audible sounds of any kind. next speaker, please. >> can i put this over to the -- >> clerk: no, if you just place the document underneath it, it should -- sfgtv. >> i live 300 feet away apparently from where the construction will happen. i wasn't notified about that, either, but in researching it, i see it's been going on since january 15, when the legislation was passed.

i see supervisor ronen passed off on bypassing the 30-day rule, and land use and transportation committee, it passed with a recommendation. i will commend that supervisor haney in that committee did ask for an amendment that other locations would be considered in exchange for him supporting the navigation center in south beach, and i think that's kind of lost on people today, but that is something that went in. however, it's a little bit like bringing a spoon to a knife fight, i guess. i printed out this map. it's a -- it's from the chronicle, and the red shows the locations that were considered but not implemented. they're flashing red and blue here. it's not working exactly right, but i gave everybody a copy. but the thing to me that struck out is there's eight cited on market or -- sites on market or

north of market that were never implemented, but there are eight sites on market that are implemented and now closed. i think if we're going to share the homeless situation in san francisco, i think the other supervisors should step up and well come one into arth-- welcn their district, as well. i've moved to another neighborhood -- i don't know. maybe it's me, they're following me. short of that, i'll just have to get miss jones involved and let her know that everything's coming into our neighborhood. we'll see what happens. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> my name is robert rossi, native san franciscan, and fifth generation district six. i want to let you know that i stand with my neighbors in opposition to the navigation center, but please keep in mind, i consider myself and my

neighbors humanitarians. so we are clearly behind the city's effort in helping the homeless, but at the same time, district six already has two shelters that we've supported, and now it's time i think that the other ten districts, you know, share in the responsibility of solving this problem. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> good afternoon, president yee, board of supervisors, jennifer ingarcia, uf -- jennifer garcia, local 5648. i'd like to thank you for urging walgreens to consider negotiating with 5648. walgreens received over $350 million last year from the trump tax break, and they are asking for take aways from the workers. this is at a time where data shows the total cost of living

in san francisco is over 62% higher than anywhere else and -- than u.s. average, and rent rates are the highest in the country. our members, walgreens workers, have been coming to work every day for years, sometimes decades, devoting their lives to every patient and customer that walks through the doors. workers coming to work every day is what has made walgreens a success. workers bring value to this company. workers are the face of this company. workers are your neighbors and your friends, workers are the parents of your children's classmates at school. it's not okay to take trump's tax break and turn your back on workers, not in san francisco. ufcw local 648 thanks you for this resolution urging wall greens to reach a fair and equitiable contract for their

workers. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. next. >> tom gilberti. within two weeks, all these people from district six have appeared here. the statement is that the protocol is very wrong. let the conversation begin. and streamlining -- stream lined contracting for homeless services and siteings for homeless shelters, that was item 24 today, is this going to be what we come up with every time our stream lined process goes into a neighborhood? again, let the conversation begin. last week, we have a close --

let's see if we can get this. last week, i brought this in, the new yorker, about lobbying. it was a good story. i brought it in four years ago. the date of this issue was september 1, 2014. the article -- i don't think i mentioned the date. friends of israel, by connie bruck. it was an excellent, excellent read. we've been talking about global climate change, and we're talking about making a world war ii effort. world war ii effort is the jeremiah bryant built all around this bay. when you see all the red and white lights belching an

invisible poison, now we come to the trump's -- how do we get rid of this poison? what is the cost of high speed rail? against the governor, i would say double down. show that we can do this, a high speed rail with a loop to tracy lot would be fine. >> president yee: thank you for your comment. any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, let's come back to our closed session later in the agenda. >> clerk: okay. >> president yee: so for now, please call, without -- without committee reference calendar items 35 through 39, out of order. >> clerk: items 35 through 39 were introduced for adoption without reference to committee today. a unanimous vote is required for resolutions on first

reading. alternatively, any supervisor may require a resolution on first reading to go to committee. >> president yee: okay. would any of my colleagues like to sever any items? supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: i'd like to sever item 39, please. >> president yee: okay. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: item 35. >> president yee: okay. so let's look at 36, 37, and 38. colleagues -- do we need roll call or -- >> clerk: roll call, mr. president. >> president yee: okay. roll call, please. >> clerk: on items 36, 37, and 38 -- [roll call]

>> clerk: there are 11 ayes. >> president yee: okay. okay. so items 36, 37, 38, the resolutions are adopted unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's take -- call item number 35. >> clerk: item 35 is a resolution to support a permanent memorial in san francisco for the victims and survivors of the irish famine, also known as the great hunger. >> president yee: okay. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, president yee. i just wanted to make some remarks about this item. this past weekend, many of us celebrated st. patrick's day and the essential contributions of the irish american community that has made to our city and

in particular to my district, where irish culture and traditions have rooted and fluorished to the benefits of us all. i think it's important that we recognize and memorialize the impacts of the irish that came to america in the 20th century. in the span of a decade, the population of ireland declined by 50%. it's repeatable, as food insecurity impacts billions in the world and millions in the united states. this honors that legacy by expressing support for a permanent memorial here in san francisco for the victims of the famine, and my office worked closely with members of the neighborhood in drafting it. i'd like to thank my colleagues, and i'd just especially like to thank the

entire irish famine memorial community, several of whom came to speak today, afor their leadership in their communities, in our city, and on this memorial. thank you. >> president yee: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. just briefly, i'd like to thank supervisor mar for bringing this important resolution forward and absolutely support this recognition of the irish famine memorial. being a native of boston, massachusetts, and a large irish community there, this is something that iss engrained i the minds of those that understand the irish history. as supervisor mar said, there was plenty of food at the table, and it was a strategic

and horrible way to starve food, and it's such a horrible thing to contemplate as part of the history of the irish people in this city. i just want to thank the members of the community for bringing this forward, and thank you, supervisor mar for your leadership on this issue. >> president yee: supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: yes. i also want to thank supervisor mar for bringing this forward and to the members of the irish community here, i think the last couple weeks were another reminder for us of how important the irish and irish american community is to our city, and i think it's very fitting to have this memorial and as a way to remember and to have -- educate people in our city and to talk about the history of ireland, of the irish americans, of irish san franciscans, so i'm very supportive of this and in working with the community and the city to make sure that we get this done and move forward.

>> president yee: okay. thank you. colleagues, can we take this item, same house, same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, please call item number 39. >> clerk: item 39 is a resolution to urge the state to increase funding to the california violence intervention and prevention program from 9 million annually to 39 million. >> president yee: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president yee. i just want to quickly acknowledge all the moms demand action that came to sacramento yesterday from all over the state. there are hundreds to advocate for more funding. i want to thank my cosponsors on this, supervisors mar and walton. it's just basically advocating for more money to study gun violence prevention and gun prevention. as the resolution states, the proposed budget right now says $9 million. we want it up to $39 million

to -- to basically equal what new york and massachusetts do, so california's done so much with gun violence prevention, and i think adding more money to study it in this way is a good step in the right direction, so i hope to have your support. >> president yee: thank you. colleagues, can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. [gavel]. >> president yee: madam clerk, let's go back to item 34, which is scheduled, pursuant to motion m-19-032, approval on february 12, 2019, and continued from february 26, 2013. >> clerk: item 34 is a closed session today, march 19, 2019, for the purpose of conferring with or receiving advice from the city attorney regarding existing litigation in which the city is a defendant and

appellee pertaining to the american beverage association, california retailers association and the california state outdoor advertising association versus the city. the public comment required on whether or not to go into closed session was satisfied multiple times on february 12, 2019 and again on february 26, 2019. >> president yee: okay, colleagues, public comment has already been taken on item 34 through general public comment, so we will now convene in closed session. members of the public, we ask that you exit the chamber, and the sheriffs to lock the doors behind them. we will reopen the chamber once we finish our closed session, and the public will be allowed to reenter.