>> caller: hello, i'm a resident of the mission district. i'm speaking to support the project and i would like the commission to keep the big picture in mind. really hard times with small business in decline and here we have a project that is offering so much in terms of employment, in terms of opportunities. i am not a consumer of cannabis myself, but i can say that yes, there are dispensearies in the neighborhood but there are many lines in front them. there is definitely a need and i don't see why we should deny the sponsor the opportunity to start a business and create opportunities for everybody. thanks. >> okay, commissioners, that will conclude public comment.

and the matter is now before you. before i call on the other commissioners, i have questions for the organized opposition. there is a work force agreement and generally in support of the location and the usage, but i had a question for the opposition. we heard a case a year or two ago on the mission street and i know that the project sponsor for tht project really took their time and met with the community and came to a handful of agreements. bill's project sponsor have met the same types of agreements and if they have or have not, to what degree have they met you guys halfway? >> caller: hi. this is teresa. yes, part of their signed

agreement, they had already signed a peace labor agreement, and that was an exhibit that was attached to their community benefits agreement. and then they went -- it's a private agreement, but they went above and beyond anything that's offered here. and the mission had asked this project sponsor for a continuous so that the united states mission members and his committee members could work together to make sure that this agreement was at least as strong as the one that was signed by union station. >> and to what degree have they met those same commitments or are they close or is it far away? >> caller: we have not made an agreement. we've only met once with the equity council, and we have not

-- us m has not signed an agreement. that's why we are asking for a continuous, not a petition, but rather a continuous. >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> thank you for your question. i have a lot of questions as well to the organized opposition. can you repeat again or clarify? since you are -- since our requesting for continuous, what are the terms that the project sponsor has not met yet? >> the biggest concern for us, one of the biggest concerns is that it's on-binding and there is no enforcement mechanism for

the cda. but to our knowledge doesn't have signed agreements with the people that peis making these promises to, and that's incredibly important that we've heard feedback from our families, from other businesses, and from other cannabis businesses as well, that he meets these same standards. and he says he's going to offer discounts and he's going to do certain things but there aren't very specific parameters and those are the kinds of things that we are looking to get more clarification and to you know, fill out the cva and make it more robust. >> thank you. i have a question to our staff. michael, so part of the project

description here -- and maybe you can clarify to me as well in terms of the background. it's noted about the mission alcoholic beverage use district and how on site consumption are sometimes based on that. not permitted to the beverage but the on-site consumption does not change that. can you clarify or can you give me a background on that? >> sure, so this discussion is coming from the early 2018 first phase of us having difficult-use cannabis in the city -- adult-use cannabis in the city. and on-site consumption are appropriate. in those early discussions, the

commission had suggested that we look at the land-use allowance for other similar types of consumption uses, such as bars, but that was an early way that the department and commission were considering these. over the course of actually reviewing sites, we have found that that isn't exactly a very helpful view, particularly because there is an equity component to on-site consumption, particularly when the city pusues legislation that would ban consumption within apartments but allow them in single-family homes. and we did have a similar case in the mission where 275 mission where the department was initially recommending this approval of an on-site consumption lounge, and through our process a lot of concern came with residents of the

mission living in houing situations like sros that do not allow consumption and really kind of legalizing cannabis but then making it where it's not any legal place where someone can consume. so consumption is a tricky issue, and we still retain some of that discussion of bar uses but our analysis is trying to be a little more comprehensive. in the mission, there was an effort a long time ago there was a recognition that the mission is overcocentrated with alcohol uses, and there was a desire to not allow more. and so the mission alcoholic beverage use district, you can move some of those uses around, like if you're an existing bar, you can relocate to another site within the district, but you can't create a new one. so that's where that's coming from, is we have existing

controls that recognize a overcocentration of alcohol uses and does not allow the number of those uses to increase. >> well assuing -- well, it sounds like the valencia corridor doesn't have the alcohol-restricted use district. it does or it doesn't? >> the mission of alcoholic beverages use district covers a broad area of the mission, including this location. >> and since you mentioned the previous project that was 275 mission and from what i'm hearing looks like there was a big mlu that happened back then. was there implementation mechanism on that? and now that there are -- there is a coming in front of us, even though it may not be a factor

for our approval of this, how is the implementation on that earlier project? >> so there was a memorandum of understanding, i believe between the mission and the operator for the 2075 mission. that was a private agreement that was not under the city's puview. we do not have a copy of the agreement. that's not something that's enforceable by the city. the cannabis project -- there is the private agreement realm where a sponsor may have some understandings with neighborhood groups. that's not something that the city ever enforces on and most of the time are not privyto. and there is the benefits agreement that there are enforcement mechanisms under he police code, where if somebody is advertiing their business, will provide a certain benefit when they are doing their public outreach to try to ask permission to get a license.

the police code does require that those actually be implemented as part of the business. it's not clear what that enforcement mechanism will look like when these businesses are -- it's a new program for the city's office of cannabis and their enforcement division is something that is still being actively developed. but there are provisions in the police code that, if there is something in the community use benefits agreement, they're not he supposed to be changed without a public process. >> does that mean -- >> it's through the city's office of cannabis through the licening. basically, there is a provision in the police code -- and i'm sorry, i don't remember the specific version. but it does state that if you are advertising a certain community benefit as part of your good neighborhood outreach, that this is -- it is something

that is a requirement of the license. >> oh, okay. so thank you. michael, or mr. christensen. my comments, my initial comments for this is that we are aware that the mission is heavily saturated or not just mission but priarily on the eastern side of the city. and i think for me what i'm finding problematic is that we lack of equity policy when it comes to cannabis. and so what is happening, i feel like, is that you know, communities are resorted to cbas. and again, in terms of the negotiation that's happening between the community and the project sponsor on the community benefits, you know, again, the

committee are left to negotiate on those things. and us in the planning, i feel like we need to assess, especially if it's a big -- if it's a bigger square footage of a place, where just about 5,000 square feet, that if we're -- that there need to be a tracking of cannabis dispenary and whether this is appropriate in this area and if this is appropriate in tis area, then what are the best measurements for equity. i'm having a hard time on this. i'm not going to be -- i'm just going to be honest. but i feel like in order for committees to have some sort of -- i think the planning department, we should start looking into having an equity policy on the cannabis.

and in terms of the implementation of the cbas, i really wish that there is more binding agreement to it. but -- so those are my initial comments, and i'll be happy to hear what other commissioners say as well. >> commissioner tanner. >> thank you. i think you hit oba couple great points i want to echo. i think they're a little bit global than this specific project, which i think we're having a little bit of a challenge. i think it would be adviable for the department to take a look at the equity issues related to cannabis industry, which is growing, but in terms of gographic distribution. but as we have been getting more applications and perhaps we can learn some things, i'm hoping as a city kind of understand the what is it that we expect our applicants and eventually when we open operators to be

providing both as a business to the neighboring community. i know in the 2019 report from the controller there was not a recommendation around geography. but if we take a look at the program and understand opportunities to advance equits through cannabis. i did also note in that report concerns about this oversaturation of the cannabis industry in san francisco, which could be a challenge not only for the diversity of retail types and different storefront operations in the city so that we have diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods, but also that the industry itself could be harmed if there is too much saturation and it goes beyond a healthy level of competition. i do not suppose to know what that healthy level of competition is, but certainly it's an industry, at least in my short time in the commission, i've seen probably the most applications for cannabis, has

been one of the top applications we've seen come forward. it's an industry that is somewhat recession-proof and it makes sense that folks are purr interviewing and continuing to pusue these applications and continuing to pusue their businesses. but i do think it would be good to take a look atit, especially as we are continuing the recession. mr. christensen, to go back to the comment you made about the enforceable nature of the cba. so the cba that we have in the packet, is that something that if a member of the community noticed, hey, they're not abiding by term i of section g or something, that that would be something they would call the police department to report on? and you said that enforcement is not worked out, would to be a planning code violation? how does that work? >> so the community benefits agreement is a -- term of the

good neighbor operating agreement that is part of the licening through the city's office of cannabis. so i would strongly encourage any member of the public who does notice something that is not reflected in how a business is operating to contact the city's office of cannabis. they do have staff who is dedicated to enforcement. my comment was only that the city's office of cannabis is a new agency. it's only about two years old. most of the actual sites that are licensed by the city's office of cannabis, we only have a handful so far and we have more coming in. so enforcement is not something that has yet been an extremely active part of their work. their work right now is still focused on processing applications. so my comment was more we haven't yet really seen what -- how enforcement will work. cannabis, because it's new, but

they are consulting with our enforcement team and other enforcement structures in the city to develop a work plan for that. >> great, thank you so much for that. and just to understand my ignorance of policies. is it possible that the operator didn't want to, if they could amend the agreement to add additional terms or is there just a standard template for the cba and it is what it is? i guess what i'm thinking about some of the ways they describe their business operating for example, having icubator space that is built to the benefit. that's something i would imagine if that doesn't happen, to me that would seem to be a violation of the proposed use and the proposed benefits that it's providing. however, everybody operator is not going to provide that same type of benefit or the same types of discounts and things like that. so how much flexibility is in there in that agreement?

>> the agreements that i have seen thus far have really varied widely in nature. many of them are have-- are kind of a single page, really focusing on how the business will be a good to be in -- neighbor to adjacent neighbors, to sweeping the sidewalk, having presence on the street, things like that. this is a little bit of a lengthier one. you know, it is something that is aministered by the city's office of cannabis and i am hesitant to speak as much about this given that i don't have an answer for you today. but it's something that we can look into and report back. >> thank you very much. and then i have a question for the applicant, the applicant team. we heard from the united organized opposition some of the things that they had wanted, it seemed like they were able to have one meeting. with your team, i'm curious if you feel you were interested in

or able to accommodate their request, how do you view the conversations you had with them? is the applicant on the line still? >> i'm sorry, commissioner tanner. i need to find and unmute them. just give me one second. here we go. mr. dolan. are you there? >> caller: yes, i am here. >> all right, sir. can you respond to just the conversation that you had with the organized opposition and what your your thoughts were? >> caller: i want to clarify that i started meeting with the member organizations over two years ago in 2018. there have been multiple meetings. most recently there were two specific meetings, one in september and one in january.

that we're getting into the community benefit commitments. we presented those to them about seven months ago back in june or july of 2020. they told us that they couldn't support cannabis under any circumstances, and we continued outreach to them through e-mails and concerted efforts between that point and now, and we send them the agreement. and the remaining request at our last meeting were three things. number one, they asked us to continue to stay the hearing, which we've already done for multiple months. and we don't have the ability to -- stay the hearing and we make sure that we keep this building occupied. and i also want to make it clear

that i do not own this building. we've told us m and provided -- and so we can't stay the hearing for tht purpose. i will not be able to move forward with this project any longer. the second request is that we create a cooperative ownership structure, where every member has equal ownership and equal right to vote but is not a legal structure under california state law or a licensed cannabis. and we explained that and we also explained that it's not -- it doesn't qualify under our san francisco equity program. and the final request that they made is that we physically divide the building into multiple smaller retail spaces. and again, i am not the owner of the building. i don't have authority to do that.

i do not have access to capital, and i don't have the ability to undertake a separate construction project. and ultimately, it would defeat the entire purpose and goal of this project, a cannabis equity marketplace and not to just be another 2,000 square foot cannabis retail store. and we wouldn't be able to make the commissions with that small space. >> thank you. that was great. thank you for your response. i appreciate your passion. so with that, commissioners and hearing from everyone, i would be supportive of this project, not with standing i think the need for the department to do some work with our partner agenies and partners to think about equity as it relates to the cannabis industry in some other ways.

and now i think in other ways. but i am supportive of this project. thank you. >> commissioner diamond. >> so i want to thank staff and the applicant and all of the commenters on their very, very thoughtful comments. many, many really important points were raised and are important for consideration. the ones that stand out for me the most are the following. to the extent that we think that there is saturation of cannabis retail stores, consumption or not, in the mission, i believe the right way to deal with that is not with one-off approvals or denials of projects that go all the way through the process, spend a lot of time and money getting to us and then we decide. i think the appropriate approach, if we think that we're approaching saturation point is

for legislation, and that it's inkufshth upon the department to make recommendations to legislation and take it to the board of supervisors. so i don't know whether saturation is an issue or not. it seems like it's being raised as a very significant concern, and it is worthy not of one-off approval or denials, but a more extensive study that, if we believe that is a problem, should lead to legislation. i am very concerns -- concerned about the fact that as a city, we're worried about secondhand smoke, and we are moving towards or considering actions that would limit smoking cannabis in apartment buildings where -- i'm hearing a lot of background

noise,ion -- jonas. i don't know if there is anybody i should be doing to silence that or somebody needs to put themselves on mute. >> the microphones are muted other than your own, commissioner diamond. >> okay. that it doesn't strike me as right that we are limiting opportunities for people to smoke or vape but limiting opportunities for people who live in an apartment building to smoke or vape but you can do that if you are in a sing le-family house. and if you are worried about the impact, then we need to provide opportunities for people to have smoking and vaping. in the year that i'd been on the commission, we were concerned about having consumption lounges in buildings where there have

been residents because of concern that the hvac system isn't going to work. we've been worried as a commission about allowing consumption and smoking and vaping in lounges. we've been okay with a and b permits but not c permits, if i got that terminology correct. but this particular facility, as someone pointed out, is a stand-alone facility, so if we were ever going to consider a consumption lounge, this strikes me as the right kind of physical space to allow for tht. and when i combine that with my concern about the equity of limiting opportunities for people to smoke and vape if they live in apartment buildings, that for me is a strong argument as to why we should approve this. i am also concerned about just the level of vacancy across the city and that cannabis seems to be one of the components of

retail that is still vbrant. don't want to have another empty storefront here. and lastly, i am very confused by the role that these community benefit agreements are playing here. when they're negotiated not by us but by third parties and may or may not be enforced by third parties. to the extent that the issues are covered by the agreements are important, then we should be incorporating those into our approval process, either as conditions of approval, the commercial use permits or they should be addressed by the licening department. i don't want to leave the onus for tht on neighbors. so when i put all of those factors together, there is several recommendations in there for the planning department with respect to how we treat this in the future, including you know,

determiing whether or not we want legislation to limit the number of these going forward in the mission and looking at how we, as a city, want to make sure we're imposing the requirements in the community benefit agreements. but i am with commissioner tanner in thinking that this particular process tht it's complying with all of the rules n light of some of these othe equity issues that i just described, i would be supportive of this project. >> commissioner jen? >> i think commissioner moore had a request to speak. >> you're next. >> great. so i'm wondering if i could ask mr. christensen some questions. so if there is an interest in exploring a cannabis

neighborhood cap, what will be the next steps for kind of those legislaive changes? what would that look like? >> caller: for evaluaing that. some idea of what is an appropriate level. i think that the city is grappling with -- we're starting to see certain neighborhoods feeling overcocentrated or feeling oversaturation. but on the global scale, we do have a significant portion of sales that are going to the unregulated market. can biis a very easy thing to grow in a closet and so it's something that a lot of competition that our retail feel from that ilistit market. and it's a priority of the city to continue to regulate the market such that that switches

from the unregulated -- transfer from the regulated market. so taking that picture in mind, you know, i think that the city would need to evaluate kind of a number of locations that the city as a whole can really accommodate that the market can support in such a way that we're accommodating the market as it does exist, while still supporting our existing industries. and then that the point, we would need to evaluate what that would look like as an -- in terms of spreading those uses throughout the city. that type of analysis is very detailed. it would likely require a lot of inpu from industry, from residents, from a broad swath of the city. and we do have some structures where that can happen. we do have the cannabis oversight committee, for example, which is the -- which the planning department -- where

that discussion can begin. but it does need -- [noise] the city controller's office. but up to this point, that type of discussion has not begun. >> thank you. so it's we don't want

another storefront. i do have some thoughts about the enforceibility of the cba flagship aspect of the project to make sure that the project is going to actually be what it presented itself to be. so i would just put that out there if the other commissioners were interested in trying to

report back and just to wait to have an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the cbas after the operation has started. >> before i call on commissioner moore, let me just give my two cents again. i'm in favor of the business and in favor of the location and the usage, but i did hear the words "level playing field" multiple times tonight and i don't feel that the level playing field if someone's business a block away had made enforceable cba commitments that this company won't make. i don't know that that's a level of playing field. >> i would like to support the -- or report back to calls. on the fence about this project is the fact about enforceable

where nobody has experience if that's the core of the cba. just like with c bi, many, many things happen outside and the office of cannabis is 32 years old. i think it's eloquently described and no experience nor does the public know what to complain about. it's not a security camera. [background noise] the commission has spend a lot of time with us m, and i deeply regret that a more robust jointly acceptable agreement has

not been reached. there are two sides representing different perspectives. i cannot say one way or the other exactly what to hear or not to hear. i regret that there is a split in the community about the subject. i agree with every point other commissioners made about those made to equity and other operational aspects of cannabis, the number of cannabis, the saturation of cannabis, and so i am uncertain the size of the business oiginally was a concern. it is still a concern, although the organizational structure of what is proposed here makes it a more operable project. i would wait to hear more about the commissioner.

a lot of back and forth question, and also with mr. christensen's response, i am also generally supportive of this, of this project and also supportive of commissioner chan's recommendation for a one-year report back that will report back on the robust commitment of the planning of the project sponsors together with other groups such as us m, so that there is a place still for other groups to still have this conversation and to be able to report back to the planning commission. again, my concern, since when it comes to the cannabis and the

use and on-site consumption, the size is always a big matter to me. and i am -- 5,000 square feet is important and you know, work with the planning department, together with other city agency. and i agree as well with commissioner the cbas, whether maybe those can be implemented on the conditional use. so but i would like to have the planning department start working on the equity policy. >> commissioner moore. >> i have one lingering question for the applicant. is he still available to come on and answer a question?

>> caller: i'm available. >> thank you. in one of the commenter's descriptions there was a comment that the cba agreement had not been signed. could you hear that yes or no please? >> caller: yes. the cba agreement has ben signed, and we filed it with the office of cannabis, and it is now a binding, enforceable condition of our permit. and there were nine stakeholders that signed the document, in addition to myself, and the documents cannot be changed o amended without a majority consent of that equity committee and approval from the office of cannabis. does that answer your question? >> you are basically affirming

that all necessary agreements discussed have been signed and are fully executed? >> caller: yes. >> thank you. commissioner diamond. >> i would make a motion to approve, with the addition of a one-year second condition. addressing all of the issues that were discussed, including the status of the community benefit agreement. i don't know is it the city needs to weigh in on how we actually phrase that particular condition or if that was fine the way it is.

>> commissioner diamond, i can work with planner and sort of flush out that language, but the meaning of your condition is clear, so thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> second. >> commissioners, if there is nothing further, there is a motion that has been seconded to approve this matter with conditions. as have been amendd to include a one-year report back with a specific look at the cba agreement. on that motion, commissioner tanner? a ye. >> commissioner diamond? >> a ye. >> commissioner more? a y. >> and commissioner koppel? >> a y.

>> that concludes your hearing for today. so i thank you. >> everyone, thank you.

>> candlestick park known also as the stick was an outdoor stadium for sports and entertainment. built between 1958 to 1960, it was located in the bayview hunters point where it was home to the san francisco giants and 49ers. the last event held was a concert in late 2014. it was demolished in 2015. mlb team the san francisco giants played at candlestick from 1960-1999.

fans came to see players such a willie mays and barry bonds, over 38 seasons in the open ballpark. an upper deck expansion was added in the 1970s. there are two world series played at the stick in 1962 and in 198 9. during the 1989 world series against the oakland as they were shook by an earthquake. candlestick's enclosure had minor damages from the quake but its design saved thousands of lives. nfl team the san francisco 49ers played at candlestick from feign 71-2013. it was home to five-time super bowl champion teams and hall of fame players by joe montana, jerry rice and steve jones. in 1982, the game-winning touchdown pass from joe montana to dwight clark was known as "the catch." leading the niners to their

first super bowl. the 49ers hosted eight n.f.c. championship games including the 2001 season that ended with a loss to the new york giants. in 201, the last event held at candlestick park was a concert by paul mccartney who played with the beatles in 1966, the stadium's first concert. demolition of the stick began in late 2014 and it was completed in september 2015. the giants had moved to pacific rail park in 2000 while the 49ers moved to santa clara in 2014. with structural claims and numerous name changes, many have passed through and will remember candlestick park as home to the legendary athletes and entertainment. these memorable moments will live on in a place called the stick. (♪♪♪)

>> good morning. this meeting will come to order and welcome to the thursday, january 21, 2021 meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i am supervisor dean preston, the chair of the committee. and i am joined by vice chair connie chan and hopefully soon by committee member mandelman. thank you to the committee clerk john careroll and sfgov for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes, thank you, mr. share.

to protect the public, the board of legislator chambers and committee room are closed taken in precaution to the state, local orders declarations and directives. committee member wills attend via video conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. cable channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in comment number across the 2013. your opportunity to speak and provide comments during any of the public comment period today will be available to you via phone by calling 415-655-0001. once you are connect and prompted, enter today's meeting idea and the meeting i.d. is (146) 181-2723. following that press the pound symbol twice and you will hear the discussion with the line

muted in listening mode only. dial star followed by 3 to be added to the speaker line. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down the television, radio and streaming device. everyone must account for potential time delays and speaking discrepancies encountered between live coverage and streaming. alternatively, you may submit to either of the following ways by emails me john carroll, clerk of the government audit and oversight knee committee and the email address is john.carroll@sfgov.org. if you submit your public comment via email, i will include the comments as part of the legislative file. and alternatively, submit via mail to our office which is still open in city hall and the

address is 1 dr. carlton b. goodlet place room 244 san francisco, california, 941002 and all this connect information is available on the front page of the agenda. finally, mr. chair, items on the agenda will acheer on the board of supervisors agenda on february 2, 2021 unless otherwise stated. >> a thank you, mr. clerk. before we call the first agenda item, wanted to start by thanking the former chair of the committee, supervisor gore dan mar, who will be with us on the first agenda item, who served on the committee together with former committee member aaron peskin and supervisor matt haney. appreciate their service on this committee and supervisor mar's leadership. also noticing that my colleague supervisor mandelman has joined the meeting, so welcome to you as well. i want to welcome and vice chair

supervisor connie chan and as i mentioned supervisor mandelman. really looking forward to working with both of you on this committee. and i did just want to say before we get started that the government audit and oversight committee is in my opinion really critical committee and honored to serve as chair during this moment in time. i think that it radionow the residents of our city need government more than ever, and i think this committee plays an important role with a check on the exercise of government power and duty of providing oversight and exercising the power of inquiry. to have the promises of government are kept and achieve the highest level of excellence

and the committee is about good government, transparency, and accountability. and i think that looking back over the last year certainly the corruption revelations have really done damage to the public's confidence in city hall and is not just about the abuse of power and kree t yays distrust in government. and that fuels privatization and a privatization agenda that serves profits rather than public benefits. and i think when we allow a culture of corruption to continue in san francisco, we are able to lose support for the desperately needed government-based solutions. i believe this committee can, has, and must play a key role in advancing reforms and oversight that is necessary to insure confidence with the effective functioning of government. looking forward very much to working with you, colleague, on

these and the many matters that come before the committee and also want to specifically thank the clerk's office and in particular the clerk john carroll here on the gao committee. the city attorney's office, specifically deputy city attorney ann pearson and supervisor mar and his legislative aide edward wright for their work, all of them, in ensuring a smooth transition helping us get up to speed to serve as chair of the committee. mr. clerk w that, please call item one. >> thank you, mr. chair. agenda item number one is follow-up hearing on the 2018 to 2019 civil grand jury report entitled act now before it is too late. progressively expand and enhance our high pressure emergency firefighting water system. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this matter should call the public comment number now, and i will repeat that number.

415-655-0001. enter the meeting i.d. of 146 181 2723 followed by pressing the pound sign to connect to the meeting. and then to indicate that you wish to speak, press the star key followed by number 3 to enter the queue. the system prompt wills indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that your line has been unmuted and that will be your opportunity to provide your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you, mr. clerk. i would like to, again, welcome supervisor mar who is the sponsor of this important item recognize and thank you for your work on this. and thank you for bringing it forward today. would like to turn the floor over the o you to give any remarks and recognize who will be speaking and presenting on this item today. supervisor mar. >> supervisor: thank you so much, chair preston, and supervisors chan and mandelman for scheduling today's hearing.

i want to start by briefly explaining the background. this is the third hearing that this committee has held to consider an important report issued by the civil grand jury in july 2019. highlighting the critical need to expand and enhance our city's emergency firefighting water system. the first hearing was in september 2019 where the civil grand jury presented their findings and recommendations and city departments presented the responses. following that first hearing, the board of supervisors adopted a resolution with our responses to the findings and recommendations in the report. but due to the fact that in 2019 the board responded that several of the recommendations required further analysis and some of that analysis is still outstanding, this file has remained open until the board can update those responses to the required response type which includes out the matter. this is actually not likely to happen until june of 2022 given

the long-term planning that's needed for this really important work. additionally, in november of 2019 the board unanimously adopted a separate resolution that i offered declaring a state of urgency to rapidly expand the city's emergency firefighting water system which included and expanded on the recommendations of the civil grand jury report. and finally in july of last year, the t.a.o. committee held a follow-up hearing to receive updates from the departments on progress in implementing the important analysis and planning staff called for in the civil grand jury report and the board resolution. and at the time of the hearing last july the departments reported minimal progress on critical long-term planning for expansion of the efws. so we agreed to schedule'd hearing when they were ready to present a more substantive update. that is really the focus of

today's hearing. i would like to thank sfpuc, the fire department, the office of resiliency and capital planning and public works for presenting their combined update on their important work this morning. and colleagues, just briefly on the substance of the hearing, the expansion of the city's emergency firefighting water system is absolutely critical to ensuring that all neighborhoods and residents are protected in the event of a major earthquake and fire. in the board's resolution, declaring a state of urgency to expand the efws, we point to the common goal of the sfpuc, the fire department, and the board to ensure the resilience of all communities before disaster hits. our city is responding to several crises at the moment. and it is difficult to think ahead about the impact of a large earthquake or the fires that are likely to follow from ruptured gas pipelines and electrical wiring.

but ongoing action is needed to build resilient systems that would protect and save lives in the event of a natural disaster. the original auxiliary water supply system was built over 100 years ago when most of san francisco's population lived in the northeast portion of the city. san francisco built this network of high pressure water pipelines after learning the lessons of the 1906 earthquake. and yet the emergency firefighting water system or efws in its current form still leads the western and southern parts of the city unprotected in the event of catastrophic fires. most of these residential neighborhoods including the richmond and sunset district, mission view and merced, engleside heights, bayview hunter's buoyant and visitation valley are vulnerable to widespread fire, lots of life and property damage and destruction following a major earthquake.

and the usgs has predicted a major earthquake of the magnitude of the 1906 quake or higher by 2032 causing widespread damage and devastation. so today we're going to hear from the sf public utilities commission on behalf of all the departments on their progress on implementing two of the key recommendations in the civil grand jury report and the board resolution. we're also going to hear from the budget and legislative analysts office on their further analysis, independent analysis, that they conducted at the request of my office. and finally, i just want to make a note because it is something that's moving forward right now legislatively and the march 2020 easter bond that was passed by voters allocates just over $150 million of the bond, the total bond proceeds to expansion of

the efws and there's an ordinance that the board appropriation ordinance that the board is considering that would allocate an initial $20 million from the bond as a first step on expanding phase one of efws. and so chair preston, that item and to go into the presentations. >> i do not, vice chair chan or supervisor mandelman, do you have any introductory comments before we go to the presentation? supervisor mandelman? >> just very briefly i want to thank supervisor mar for taking this on for your leadership on these issues. of course, the west side of the city is most impacted by the

lack of sort of a clear plan for what to do in the event of catastrophe. but i think as i was looking at the maps, even a little bit of district date has some of the issues and is a city wide problem. so i am interested to hear presentations from the departments and get some clarity on some questions that i have. thank you. >> great. thank you, supervisor mandelman. so maybe we could go into the presentations. so we have john scarpoulo, from the sfpuc that will be presenting on behalf of all the departments. i did want to mention that we have representatives from sf fire department, department of public work, and also the office of resilience and capital planning here who can answer questions. >> thank you, supervisor mar. and thank you, to all the departments that are here whether presenting or available

for and questions. the floor is yours. thank you supervisor preston, and supervisors. as supervisor mar stated, i'm joined from the p.u.c., fire department, public works, and the office of resilience and capital planning. thank you for having us this morning. so really quickly, as supervisor mar stated, we've been to this committee quite a few times, but definitely want to make sure that everyone knows what we're talking about here when we talk about the fire fighting and water system. i'll be using eswf, high pressure fire suppression water system built after the 1906 earthquake. we have two, one near the gir

deli square and one by the baseball park, the baseball stadium. the efws was transferred in 2010. we have a ton of expertise in managing and operating water systems. it's been a great partnership with the fire department and public works. the san francisco fire department, they're the end user of the system. a system improvement and expansion must be approved by the fire department, the p.u.c., and public works. it really is the true partnership and i'll go into that a little more throughout the presentation. the final piece is that hydraulic modeling is used to guide the decision making. that wasn't always the case. so we have robust hydraulic models to show how water flows through the city during different situations and normal

operation. that's important as you're making engineering decisions. so again, getting back to the partnership, one of the first things that the three agencies did when the efws was transfer in 2010 is we had to take an assessment on what was the condition of the system? we wanted to look at modern seismic system. it's really to say how it's performing when there are no earthquakes or fires, but how is it performing when fires have been ignited. what we saw with the current system in 2010, only had about 47% reliability in terms of providing the median flow of water needed by the fire department to fight fires. so really the system that we inherited in 2010, we collectively are three agencies

needed to work together to improve it. one of the first things that you do is you don't expand a system when the current system has deficiencies. that is engineering 101. you don't want to expand it because it will make your existing system worse and your expanded area, it won't work either. when you look at the bond project on the bottom of the slide here, in 2010 and 2014. i know people were excited for us to expand the system. really, we needed to spend those 2010, $2,014 to shore up the existing system we have. so we shored up the primary water supply that was going in to the system. there are three -- our one reservoir and two tanks. we had to shore those up. we had to reduce the amount of leaks we had in the system. we were leaking 600,000 gallons

of water per day. we reduced that to minimal amounts. that's a big deal for not just saving water but when there is a fire, you don't want a lot of holes in your system. all the water is going to fight the fire. you don't want it to leak out during the event. finally with the 2010-2014 bond, we upgraded the water pump station. pump station number two, that's currently being upgraded. again, focusing on the water sources that feed into the system, making sure the system isn't leaking, that's what we needed to focus on with the 2010 and 2014 bond money. with the 2020 bond money, we're focusing on the west side of san francisco, in the sunset district and the richmond district, but a little of d7 as well. so that is really where the bulk of this 153 million is going and we're excited to implement that

project. we worked a long time with former supervisors, president yee, katie tang and supervisor fewer. we're excited to work on these west side projects. i'm not going to focus too much on the west side project today or other projects. what i really, as supervisor mar eluded to, i want to focus on two of the requests out of the civil grand jury report. that's the completion of the report by june 30, 2021. the first is to continue and complete more detailed analysis of emerging fire fighting water needs by neighborhood. the second is complete a study analyzing additional emergency fire fighting water systems, and installing those i'm going to start with the neighborhood

demand report and move on to the sea water report and happy to answer any questions on either of them. so, you may recall, and supervisor mandelman had been looking at the map, when i talk about we did an evaluation in 2010 and 2011, right when the system came over of the -- we did an evaluation of the ewfs and we looked at how well they are able to bring water to different areas of the city. this was a full build out at the time and really the importantrd -- numbers aren't important here. look at how the city is broken down into 45 areas. there are different f.r.a.s and that's how we broke them down. one of the key things that the civil grand jury said is these are such big areas that while an area may have a score of 100,

that doesn't mean that smaller areas within these respective fire response areas perform at 100, which is a great point. you may have a lot of 100s in the outer richmond district. within that 100 in the richmond district, you could have some 80s or 70s and they're not being captured by that score. so they really said it's 45 zones, really you should be able to zoom in on them. another piece that we wanted to hit on is in terms of zooming in, let's update the input to the maps. so let's take a look at building inventory. let's look at new construction. let's take a look at vegetation, which really wasn't incorporated into the prior maps. so what we really decided to do and i'll introduce the product team shortly. using the same 7.9 earthquake

and some smaller earthquakes on more distant falls like the hayward falls, looking at the geotechnical factors in the city, for example, what's in a liquid faction zone, what's built on a landfill, what's built on a bedrock. our building inventory materials, density, do they have sprinkler systems, a fire in downtown looks a lot different than a fire in district five than fires in district one. different types of construction, different types of density, different types of sprinkler systems. we need to take that into account and we do. you really will see differences in the types of fires in those neighborhoods. we also included vegetation for the first time. mclaren park, in previous reports, those were left out. they weren't built into these analysis. the old maps were almost like

snapshots. how does the system work at this time based on what we know about the city buildings? we also know that there is going to be a lot of construction in san francisco, specifically in the east and southeast side of the city. those are going to be different neighborhoods based on what we're seeing in terms of the planning documents for those areas. so therefore, we should have maps that reflect that these neighborhoods will look differently in 2030, 2040 and in 2050. it helps us to better plan. that's the goal of this report. again, understanding the fire demands in each of the respective neighborhoods is a key step in how we upgrade the system. we don't just want to upgrade things without any engineering background for them. so we use this analysis saying we see that we in the south air of district 8, that we need to increase coverage. we see that district 5 has great coverage. so that's the type of work that we're trying to get to. so an update on previous work,

this update began in 2018 and again the civil grand jury report was a big driver for it. we were doing it any way. they said continue the work because we wanted to zoom into these neighborhoods. we have an expert project team, p.u.c., fire department, our consultant and professor charles, an expert on fire modeling. he has done it for all over the world and he's the one that has developed the computer model that can feed in all these different inputs to develop and model the fires that could break out in san francisco and the response that's needed. these are some of the books that he had been involved in and lot of them are specific so san francisco. the fire following the earthquake, there are a lot of photos of him and literally in the marina during the 1989 fire

looking at what's going on and analyzing it. so in a very simple sort of flowchart, as simple as i can do it, this is how the computer model works. there is an earthquake scenario. that's the 7.8, 7.9. there is structural damage that occurs. assets are at risk, that means infrastructure and people. the discovery and response is folks calling in saying there is a fire. they're communicating in and the fire department is reporting to the scene. this takes into account transportation, blocking, and also any sort of communication infrastructure damage. so we're going to assume that certain streets were just not able to drive down or that phone calls are coming in later than they normally are because some

communications may be down. we also then -- this is where the p.u.c. comes in. how is the water infrastructure holding up? the fire department response, that feeds into suppression, that big diamond in the middle. we mean fire suppression. so ideally, the fire -- well, ideally no fires start, but if they do, the fire department responds and is able to stop the fire. that's the box to the left. in these large earthquakes scenarios, there could be -- and likely will be fire spread. that is where the fire department comes in and really stra strategically fights the fire, the water system has to be there for the fire department and we want to slow that spread. that spread is largely based on building con instructions that i went into, the density, do they have sprinklers, what's the wind like, the humidity and the ation in the area. we run thousands of computer models with all types of

variations. is it raining that night? is it one of our warm summer nights in october? all different types, because you don't just want to pick a point in time for a model. you want to have these different scenarios to help you best plan. it's a robust model. these are the inputs on the model. we are looking again at the fires. i'm sorry, it's the type of earthquakes, and where the shaking is occurring, and how the shaking impacts the different areas of san francisco. again, bedrock has a different shaking as those that are land fill or sand. we're looking at the building data. how are the buildings built? how dense are they? what type of material? et cetera. we're looking at the tree canopy database. what kind of trees are in the area? do they provide fuel for the fire? we are looking at the fire department's capability for response, how long it will take them to get to the fires, et cetera. we're looking at our current

emergency fire fighting water system and it's pipelines, hydrants and tanks and reservoirs and pump stations. we're also building in the future pipelines and water sources. this is our proposed west side game 1 -- system. so those go into updating and refining these maps. again, we want to not just do this for 2020, but for 2030, 2040, and 2050. we're using the best data we have. the planning department is a fantastic job of giving us our best estimates on how san francisco is going to look different in terms of construction in the future, where the construction will be, how it will be constructed and when. we're using our best estimates. obviously there is some uncertainty, but this is how we're going to determine how the neighborhoods will look

different based on the planning department data. so, so our future deliverables. i flagged that first map for you. our future deliverables, you may regard had 45 different f.r.a. areas. they're pretty big chunks of land. one could argue that within the respective f.r.a. is a different act -- ability to fight fires. there are 45 of these just in the sunset district alone. we will be able to provide to you all at the end of the report and we are continuing to refine them, you will get master 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. what you're going to see is the ability of the system to respond to large fires after

earthquakes. again, this is the 7.9 is our model earthquake. that's what you're going to see here. based on improvements to infrastructure, you will see how the math will change. you add more pipelines, water sources, different areas will respond to fires better. so, again don't have those maps, but we have another five months until the report is due and this is really the basis of what we're aiming to get to. >> can you just go back before you change the slide. >> of course. >> just a quick question on that. so these new boxes here, the 50 square acres. the prior map with the 45f.r.a.s, just curious, those weren't uniform so they weren't by acreage, so were they by population or number of structures? how was it constructed? >> it's based on fire response,

so they worked with the fire department to basically map those out on how to respond to fires. they're not geographic or population base, but it's in terms of fire response. i am sure that folks could give a more detailed answer but that's the high level answer. that's the fire response area, as opposed to uniform 50 acre grids that will be used here. >> thank you. >> so, what are our next steps for this report? continue to refine the inputs, continuing to making sure that we have all the inputs and run all the various scenarios. i talk about weather, different types of day, those types of inputs. we're going to continue to run these model simulations. once we feel that we refined those enough, we're going to complete these maps for 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. this is critical for the

development and finalation of the plan that is due to the board at the end of the year. that's why the timing is we finish these maps in june, we present to the board in july, we get input and that will help us inform then the types of projects that we want to put forward for this citywide action plan that is due to the board at the end of the year. okay. that's a mouth full, but that is report number one. report number two is our sea water pump report. this is a wide variety of categories that is needed to look at when you are talking about adding a sea water pump station to not only to our system but that infrastructure on our coast. we're looking at the permitting requirements, siting

requirements, and there are a lot of engineering considerations, including the type of pumps and obviously it helps us determine capital costs, the types of operation and maintenance that is required and operating costs. so let's start with regulatory and permitting and i'm sorry i'm going to have to read a little bit here. there is a lot of different agencies involved. basically the primary shoreline regulatory agencies and those when i say the primary regulatory agencies, they're the ones that have a final say in the overall approval process. it varies depending on the location of where you're installing these sea water pumpstations. so they are on the oceanside of the city, west of the golden

gate bridge, national park service, that's who you're working with to get the permitting. on the bayside, it's the bay conservation, the primary shoreline decision making body. there are small portions on the bayside and the port is a major player as well. there are other regulatory jurisdictions involved. so for folks that are familiar with the ocean master plan, they know all these agencies are involved. this is not a simple area to permit things on the ocean or bay. that could be the california state land commission, the control board, the water quality control board, the army corps of engineers, the national marine fishery, u.s. coast guard, there are a lot of entities involved here. really when folks talk about how easy it is to permit a sea water pumpstation, it's not easy.

it's in the moderate to high effort bucket. the california coastal commission with the ocean plan, they really made it very difficult to just quickly install sea water infrastructure. i think folks know that there is a lot of talk about moving infrastructure back from the coast due to shifting sands, rising associations. so just point out that it's not very easy. it's not impossible, but it's not something that can happen overnight. there are very different areas of the coastline in san francisco. so, we tried to break it down into two ways, based on permitting and based on the geological considerations. so in terms of permitting, again think golden gate bridge west, rocky area north, south, and southern dunes, that's the coastal commission on the left

there, that line. on the right, heading east, the north bay front and east bay front, that's the b c.d.c. that's one consideration. on the geological side, anyone who knows the bay and ocean knows the shorelines can look different. you're in the rocky area north and looking down, those are really rocky areas. it's not smooth down to the ocean at all. it's a totally different type of geological environment than if you're at the southern dunes. if you're at the great highway, it's different in terms of geology. that impacts the engineering constraints we're looking at. this is how we broke up the city into these five areas for this study. one of the key pieces here in terms of citing sea water infrastructure is preparing for

avoiding and mitigaing from sea level rise and inundation zones. you don't want to place a $200 million new pump station and not consider the fact that there is sea water rise happening around it. what we're going to look at is how do we avoid it? do we need to put the pump station at a higher elevation? do we need them to be on stilts and be flood-proof? do we need protectstive walls around the pump station? should we elevate sensitive components and how are we flood-proofing the structures? this is all how we should design and cite a sea water pump station. this shows the sea level rise and inundation zone. it can be quite -- you know they can go in quite far inland. we're also looking at the

geological and gee technical layout of the city. i talked about the difference in terms of rocky areas in the northern rocky zone and the west side in the sandy area. that's really important on the bayside. specifically, not just on land but in the water. so, i think we all probably heard the phrase bay mud before. bay mud makes it difficult to run a certain type of pump, sea water pump station to pull water in. you start pulling mud in and you're not pulling the water in. you pull it out and it's a chunk of clay in your hand. it's not really easy to pull water without sucking clay into your pipes. we're looking at all of this so we don't come forward with analysis that doesn't take into consideration bay mud or rocky territory that the pump will have to overcome. that leads to the point about

elevation. we need to understand the elevation of the coastal area. you know, again the beach is a good example. you can see it's a soft incline up. it's not very steep at first. it's pretty gradual. it's the same over in the hunters point area. it's fairly gradual up. if you are standing in the rocky area, you know if you go over the cliffs, it's straight down. if you're a pump station, you would have to pump that water right over lands end quickly and you would need a lot of horsepower. those are the types of things we're looking at too. in addition to those factors, obviously there is additional engineering factors to consider. one of them is you put your pump station in, where is the nearest existing efws pipeline to that station? how far do i have to run one to

connect to the existing system? what's the difference in elevation? i spoke about lands end and slope, where it's right up and then the other is gradual. those elevation differences and the distance differences help us determine not only the pipe length, but the pipe size and the pump discharge pressures that would be needed to provide the amount of water the fire department needs. so, you know if the fire department says we need 50,000 gallons, then that determines how big the pipe needs to be and how big the pump needs to be. another thing to consider is the fire department may say we need 50,000 gallons per minute at this connection point and we can do the right size pump and pipeline to connect to that existing efws pipeline but if that's is significantly smaller than the pipeline we're bringing

in, we have problems. we're running a 40-inch pipeline from a brand new pump station and it's connected to a 12-inch pipeline. that can cause all sorts of hydraulic issues throughout the system. it wouldn't function the way the fire department wants it. we may have to up size certain pipelines to make the system work. final thing that we're looking at here is that the two different types of pump station types. there is open water intake, which i think is the more traditional type that most folks know about when they talk about bringing sea water in. it's a tums -- tunnel that brings sea water in and they connect to pipelines and send the water out. the california coastal commission has basically said on the oceanside of san francisco, these can only be done if slant wells are in -- infeasible. that's the bottom photo here.

they get their name, because you can see the pipeline going in diagonally, at a slant into the ocean there, opposed to horizon or vertical, which is more traditional. it pulls sea water from beneath the ocean floor. they're becoming more common as an outcome of the california state regulators, preferring a more environmentally friendly approach. their main goal is to prevent harming sea life. they're built on this diagonal direction here. again, i talked about the bay mud. slant wells would not work well in the southeast sector because you would be pulling in bay mud into your pipelines. they work better in different areas of the city for example. one thing to note here is that slant wells don't have the intake capacity that your open water intake has. if we're building a 10,000

gallon a minute intake, you have two pumps. to get that same amount of water with a slant well, you have to have six pumps with these pipelines, four operating and two back up. so those are the types of things we're looking at in terms of cost, sizing of the system, getting the right geographic area to build these things. they all feed in. so what are the next steps here? we're continuing the engineering and analysis, including assessment of the flow requirements. again, when we talk to the fire department, do you need 10,000 gallons or 50,000 gallons per minute? we're looking at environmental and permit requirements are a big portion of it. based on a wide variety of scenarios, different types of pump stations, different capacities, different locations throughout the city, we can start to begin to develop capital and operations and maintenance costs for a wide variety of these options.

i hope to complete this report, we will definitely complete it by the deadline of june 30, 2021. just like the neighborhood fire analysis, this will feed into the citywide action plan that we're bringing to the board at the end of the year. so my final slide here, next steps programmatically, complete the reports, submit them to the board by june 30, 2021, come back with the final report december 31, 2021, a comprehensive citywide plan and under direction from supervisor mar, we'll come back in june of 2021 to present on the finalized report and preview the citywide plan and again present the citywide plan in january 2022. i apologize it was long and i spoke quickly, but i'm happy to answer any questions you may

have. >> thank you and supervisor mar, i don't know if you want to proceed with questions. >> b.l.a. has prepared a report as well. >> yeah, chair preston, i think it may be helpful to have the b.l.a. presentation right now and then go into questions. >> great, let's do that. >> yes, good morning chair preston, members of the committee, supervisor mar. i have a very brief presentation that is really speaking specifically to financing, of the emergency water fighting system. so, the grand jury presented their report in 2019. since then, the city has actually begun to fund the west side phase one project of the

emergency fire fighting water system. funding is in place for the west side phase one. so the project cost is $198 million, of that amount 143 million is allocated for earthquake safety and emergency response approved by the voters in march 2020. so the voters approved a $628 million bond in 2020. the pending before the board of supervisors at this time is the issuance of the entire 628 million and then the appropriation of $25 million. that will be subject to board approval. $20 million is allocated to the initial planning design review of the emergency fire fighting water project. this is the beginning of the use of the bond fund for these

projects. it's allocated 153 million for emergency firefighting water system projects. also, some water enterprise revenues because the phase one project is part of the system. under 218, there are restrictions on the use of utility revenues for non-utility purposes. so in this case, because it's part of the system, those water enterprise revenues are available for the project. the second piece of the recommendation from the grand jury in 2019 is to increase the number of host tenders. now that's a truck, 1 mile of hose, a pump, and other fire fighting equipment. so they provide that last mile of coverage or areas of coverage

that aren't otherwise covered by hydrants or water infrastructure. the cost for each truck is $1 million. so in the 2019/2020 budget, there was money for the purchase of four new hose tenders. that would be $5 million for five hose tenders. however, during the mid year rebalancing plans, the general fund portion was cut by $2 million, resulting to 3 million being available to purchase these three, which are in the purchasing process. so in terms of looking forward to address the, what is considered necessary for financing hose tenders, there is an option that would be subject to board approval for lease revenue financing. so in the city charter, the san

francisco finance corporation, which provides for these financing for equipment and other infrastructure, capital costs, many of which are not actually eligible to be funded through bond funding. at the current time, there is almost no financing being used in the revenue financing, which means the authority to issued a decisional lease revenue financing is available under the san francisco finance corporation. in recent years because of the state of the general fund, the city has been able to use pay as you go money for big equipment purchases. in the past, the city has used other forms of financing. this would be a source of financing for additional host tenders. it would be subject to the board of supervisors approval. the only other point that we

have is a draft of a 10 year capital plan. it's subject to board approval. it's recently approved by the capital planning committee. in the draft plan, there is a plan to issued a decisional bonds, subject to voter approval in 2027. it calls for $217 million. however, this is not allocated specifically to the emergency fire fighting water service. it could actually go for other public safety projects. that would be subject to board approval. so at this time, the only other planning in terms of made to financing for the emergency fire fighting water system is through the potential eser bond in 2027. so the issuance of a 2027 general bond might actually impact the feasibility of having

a stand alone bond for the system. that's just a brief summary of where the financing is at this time and what is known at this time. we're available for questions if you may have any. >> thank you ms. campbell. supervisor mar. >> thank you chair preston. thank you for the very thorough update presentation on all the work that the departments have been doing on planning for the extension of the efws and thanks also ms. camable -- campbell on the b.l.a.'s analysis as well. i want to say that the department, it was very much like like and day better than at the hearing back in july.

i really appreciate all the work that's happened since then to really start developing the plan, specifically around those two key recommendations on a more comprehensive and detailed analysis by neighborhood of the fire fighting needs and also the planning around the feasibility of a west side sea water pump station. so, i'm very pleased to see the progress in those reports. i don't really have any questions about the specifics around the presentation, but more of a general question and i know the sea water, the analysis of the feasibility of a sea water pumping station on the west side is new. this is significant -- it would be a significant change to the current plan that exists right now for expansion of efws

because right now the plan is, you know, not to have a sea water pump station on the west side and instead to tap water from lake merit said in phase one of the west side efws plan and eventually in phase two of the efws tap water, our drinking water from sunset reservoir and that's been a big concern from a lot of folks on the west side for what that would mean for lake merit said and our drinking water at sunset reservoir that we would need in the case of a potential major earthquake and fire or natural disaster. so i just had a question then what -- like if a sea water pump station does prove to be feasible and really what is needed to ensure, you know,

adequate water supply, especially on the west side, what does that mean for the current plan on the west side efws to tap lake merit said. i know that is included in part of phase one of the efws. the initial money is going to start in investment in. >> sure supervisor mar. this is john, i'm happy to answer that question. so they're not mutually exclusive, meaning we can still move forward with the phase 1 plans that we have and i think it's really prudent to do so because we can move forward quickly and the lake has over 2 billion gallons of water that can be used for fire fighting purposes. it's a great water source, especially to use immediately. a sea water pump could take a

long time to design and permit and get approvals. the way that they talked to me about water sources is that the more you have of them, it's better. so it's like water diversification. if you just had a sea water pump station and that sea water pump station goes down, where is your other source of water? if we had lake merit said, sunset, and future sea water pump station, and twin peaks reservoir and the more sources we have, the more resilient the system will be. it allows the fire department to utilize different water sources at different types. [please stand by]

. . . >> so you spoke about lake merced. so i understand your point about multiple sources being positive

and lake merced being being the initial place to tap and the construction of a westside sea water pumping station. what about sunset reservoir? i think there has been a lot of concern from residents anded a advocates and tapping that resource with a much more -- with a much better approach because it is unlimited supply. and it is how basically efws is being -- what the source of watter is for the existing system given the two bayside sea water pumping stations. >> sure. just a clarification on the east side system that is the hardest point for us to communicate to folks, and i don't know that i have always done the best job at

it, so i will take full blame here. the east side is an existing system. while there are two sea water pump stations associated with it, the sea water is not the primary source of water to be used. actually, it is just like sunset reservoir. so i would argue that actually on the east side we use het hetchy water 99% of the time. from talking to the fire and going back in the recordbooks, we only know of two times that the sea water pump stations have been turned on since the 1996 earthquake. all the other large fires that we have seen is het hetchy water system. the two time where is once in 1984 when the twin peaks reservoir and other fresh water systems and went down for maintenance, and at the 1989 earthquake as folks i am sure remember that hit at 5:04 p.m.

around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., we finally needed to turn on one of the sea water pump station. we only turned one of them on and it wasn't four, five hours in. i want to make sure that folks know that all the other fires it is actually not sea water that is being used. it is het hetchy regional water being used. similarly on the west side, i understand the concern and we can't say the east side system is great and the west side is bad because they are both being proposed to 'ute het hetchy and you don't want to keep sea water in the pipeline corroding the valves and the pipes. it is really corrosive.

so you really want to push in sea water in an emergency fire situation. in terms of concerns about the water reliability on the west side t great thing about sunset reservoir is it's actually 180 million gallons. that is how much it fits in there. and it can be isolated. there are two basins within it. just picture two buckets within one reservoir. each of buckets has 90 million gallon of water. the proposal is only to use one of the buckets for firefighting while the other 90 million gallon cans be used to continue for drinking water purposes, etc. the city uses about 45 to 65 million gallons a day. it's really changed because of covid. sunset and lower city has significantly lower water usage and you don't have the tall high-rises with big water use.

so the amount of water in the sunset reservoir could last for several days after a firefighting has stopped. and it could be refilled by the hetch hetchy water system which we spent $4.8 billion bringing up to a 7.9 earthquake resiliency model. i totally understand people's concerns, but just want to point out we do the same system on the east side. >> commissioner: thank you, john. one final follow-up commission. how much times with us the efws used last year in 2020 to put out a major fire? and which fires were those? >> i want to ask my colleagues from the san francisco fire department to please answer that one. i do know and i can speak when we turned in in july as of july, there was -- we had used it twice. but things may have changed since then. i will ask one of my fire colleagues to answer that. >> i do believe we have someone

from san francisco fire department on the line. and please if you could both answer that but also if there is anything additional to add to or correct or anything you see fit on this item, the floor is yours. >> good morning, chair. good morning, supervisors. i ap the deputy chief of administration for the fire department. and john is correct. in july we used it twice. and after that we used it twice more. recall the pier 45 fire we had and the fulsome street fire. and it is not common we use it. i want to emphasize one of the things that john has said that our system, our operations are based on redundancies. everything we do, we operate most fires with low pressure and with the low pressure, domestic water system, and having the hyper system and cisterns and is a back toup the backup to the backup system that we use.

and so thank you for that. it is unique and sf is unique and we are the only city in the world in addition to vancouver that has this system, so we are unique in that system. >> i'm sorry, one maybe follow-up question for those who fires. the pier 45 fire and the fulsome that efws was used to and what may have been the situation if a fire like those two happen. if we don't have access to efws, and would you -- can you just describe what the more extensive damage that would have resulted from that would be? >> it will depend on building construction. it will depend on the ignition factors. we have that fire a couple of years ago fed by the gas line.

we cannot attack that until shutdown the gas line. a lot of factors come into play. and factors of when, and whether it's near to the park and so forth. and in less dense areas, it is easier to fight fires because we have two or three story buildings to protect and separate. and we have much more distances between streets, so we have wider streets and we can do it. we have enough resources in the fire department now that any fire like that happens on the west side, we are able to tackle and suppress with no issues. >> thank you, deputy chief. i don't have any further questions, chair preston. >> supervisor: thank you, supervisor mar. i see supervisor chen on the roster. go ahead. >> supervisor: thank you, chair preston. this is a question actually for mr. scarpola. and this is specifically really about the determination on as

far as i think concern obviously on the west side, but for me will be richmond to try to understand how do you determine firefighting water needs? if you can go just a little bit specific, because you mentioned in your presentation specifically about city buildings. and that eluded to density. and knowing the fact that i think there's always a conversation around housing development on the west side and for me definitely the richmond, and trying to see what will be sfpuc's method and approach to identify specifically density increase and the projection of density increase to meet the needs. sorry, you are muted. >> thank you. thank you, supervisor chen. sure, happy to discuss that

topic. doing the inputs of the fire model and we are able to -- let me go ahead and do that which will be helpful. here we go. let's go back. it will be helpful to help me talk through it. when we look at the fire demand and with the geological and bedrock situation in the richmond district. we know there's sand out there. we know there's areas of bedrock. they're going to shake differently. what is really important there and supervisor mar hit on it in the intro remarks is we're also

considering the sparking or ignition utilities in the area. what are the gas lines like in the area? how big are they? which streets do they run down? what electrical power lines are out there? how old are they? how many have been underground. how many are above ground? those are your ignition sources. we look at the building data and that is that top photo on the top map on the left here. we know in the richmond district the homes touch. we know they are built of wood. we know they don't usually have sprinkler systems. we know that they could go up fairly quickly. we know on fulton street there is a lot of trees that could go up. those are the type of things that help us then determine the types of fires that may break out in the richmond. because we ran thousands of situations and based on the different sizes of the earthquakes and high wind or rain or the type of day or the

month, we run thousands of different models that then forecast thousands of different types of fires for the richmond district. and so the fires that we are modelling for the richmond district look a lot different than the fires that we're modelling for the financial district because of the different types of construction. so when we were designing the pipeline layout for the richmond district, right here, hopefully you can see this up in your screen here. one of the key components was we wanted to make sure thereafters a pipeline that was at most no more than 1,000 feet from each property in the richmond district. the key point to that was deploy one fire engine and that pair with enough hose from the high

pressure to reach in the neighborhood. that was important to us to design this pipeline setup in the richmond. that's -- i hope that answers your question about how we model fire rs and how we model their spread in the richmond, building density, materials, utility, movement of land after an earthquake, etc. >> supervisor: if i may have a follow-up question, chair preston. i think that the question really is the projection of growth. and the changing landscape as a possibility of increase housing developments that may be seeing different type of materials and density and i would like to add on, too, including the transit planning. their conversation about projecting 10 years from now where will the possibility with the undergrounding of bart

coming to the west side. those are things i am curious in terms of -- i think often time in my experience that the city plans as it currently exists. and then down the road or five years or 10 years, the landscape change and suddenly we realize what we have planned 10 years ago is no longer feasible or applicable. i just kind of wanted to see what is the puc's method in approaching this determining what you indicate as a firefighting need. >> thank you, supervisor chen, and apologies that i missed that part of your question. really we have to use the best data available to us at this time. the best data available to us at this current time is planning department projections in terms of the building increases through the city and we use data

in terms of something in terms of where the growth is going to be, how much the growth is going to be and what we can also use is not data and is actual factual code that is important in terms of building material, building density and the inclusion of sprinkler systems into each building. the inclusion of sprinkler systems is a key piece in terms of newer buildings versus older buildings. the newer buildings are actually going to be more fire resilient and resistant due to the fire code and the sprinkleers and the great work the fire department and fire marshal does compared to the 1940 wood frames with no sprinkler system. we use current code and our best available data which can include planning department, m.d.a., and it is really important to state that because the city is shifting, we will always have to be continually refining the neighborhood fire demand projections because it's going to be such a change and because projection cans be incorrect.

>> supervisor: sorry, i just have one last question. if i may. and i would love to recommend if obviously on the -- not an expert in any of these areas and i appreciate the information. i would love to recommend your conversation and frankly, probably because we sit on that as a commissioners for the san francisco county transportation authority and would love to see sfpuc also consider perhaps looking in sfmta for some of the possible transit planning we have considering as a data point for determining your firefighter needs in our neighborhoods. thank you. >> that sounds great. the more data, the better, believe me. thank you. >> supervisor: thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair preston.

and thank you for all the work that is being done and the presentation and presentation from the bla and from the time here. i would like a little bit of clarification about my district. district eight is between the east and west side and has some characteristics of the east side and benefits from some of the post 1906 work that was done to promote resiliency but in other ways it is a little more like the west side with perhaps not the fire resiliency that we would like to see for the whole city. i am looking a this is map in the bla report, which is on page

six of that report. we are one city, not just a collection of districts, but i am a little more in between two districts than others and as best i can glean, areas 50, rfa areas 57 and 9 might be or are probably district eight. it looks to me and this is a wild guess, but is low part of the 15rfa that is below 15%. does this pale section of blue have one of the r.f.a. that is nine.

what is that? >> unfortunately, i don't have that mapped in front of me, but i do know the area. and again, p.u.c., and when it comes to district eight, you are right, supervisor mandelman, the northern and north eastern portions of the district are pretty well covers. comes through market, comes through the castro, hits that inner mission area. the southern and southwest portion have less coverage. couple different reasons. there is not a pipeline that is fairly close to that area. that is one reason. so clearly when we look at our city wide plan for 1231, we know that southern portion where district eight, district seven sort of meet there is an area that we need work. also what is interesting about your district is the elevations. the big elevation differences. so we have twin peaks reservoir that when that water comes down there and hits market and castro, that pressure is going to be thumping. it's really going to have a lot

behind it when there is a fire and the firefighters need it. moving water up to diamond heights to fight a fire is a little bit different of a ball game. the pressure obviously is lower up there if you are looking at how twin peaks would serve it. and i know i have spoken with my colleagues at the p.u.c. about we may need to build in pump stations to push water up to those southern portion of district eight or other southern areas where the southern elevation is quite high. with significantly less than 50% from the northern and to refine the maps and dive into where the challenges are in your district. generally you are right.

>> supervisor: i assume there will be more thought about this in the reports that will come out. we have had at least one hearing for a community meeting that there has been discussion about fire danger around glenn canyon. not to get people worked up, but to seem like if there is an area that could generate a fire, it seems like one that could. we don't necessarily have the fire resources there that we would want. that seems like a really bad combination that we should try to i a dress. so the hose tenders, we budgeted for four. got an additional one from the state. lost two in rebalancing.

how much do we need? >> supervisor, this is deputy chief vallo from the department. the report said they needed 20. i would love to have 20 to be honest with you. i would love to have 20 and we are currently building three. the bid closed. we have a panel assembled to start reviewing to get the bids going. obviously the more the better. but the funding is the issue obviously. there are a million like the b.l.a. said, and they are $1 million a piece. >> right, they are not cheap. and these were critical to the 1989 response. right? >> yes, they were. so if you recall on the marina area we deployed a 5-inch system and the 5-inch hose system, but in that case they were pumped from the fire boat. the fire boat pumped water into

the system there. they were critical but not as critical as we think because the fire boat pumped from the marina to create the loop system to spread the fires in the marina. but the equipment goes with the tenders. so we need the tenders and the beauty about this new one is they come with their own pumps. the ones we have right now don't have a pump. the new ones will come with pumps so they can project and extend the pipeline, if you may, above ground pipeline, through the areas that don't have access to the fire boat. >> supervisor: and so your budget will continue to propose additional acquisitions. >> absolutely. >> supervisor: and by the mayor's office and at some point you will have enough hose tenders. okay. all right. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. and unless, colleagues, you have other questions right now, let's go forward with public comment.

>> thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue to provide public comment on this hearing. please let us know if we have callers that are ready. for those who have connected to the meeting by phone, press star followed by 3 to be added to the queue if you wish to speak for this item. please continue to wait until you hear a prompt to begin. you will hear a prompt that informs you your line is unmuted. for those watching the meeting on cable channel 26 oer via streaming link, if you wish to speak on this item, call in now by following the instructions displaying on your screen. i will repeat the call-in instructions. you will dial 415-655-0001, following that you will enter the meeting i.d. for today's meeting which is 146 181 2723. that is the meeting i.d. for

today's meeting. following that you will press the pound symbol twice and press star followed by 3 to speak. i understand there are two callers on the line, mr. chair. please connect us to the first caller. >> caller: eileen, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, speak on my own behalf. the civil grand jury report made specific recommendations regarding enhancing the emergency firefighting water system. however, the recommendations are inconsistent with the first issuance of the first 2020 issuance bond of $85 million proposed for the first issuance with $20,040,000 for efws. this item was first heard at last week's budget and finance committee. the $20 million is for the updprad of two manifolds and for

the potable water efws on the west side. although the civil grand jury did not take a position on potable water efws versus the existing system, retired firefighters are strongly opposed to using drinking water to put out catastrophic fire. instead, they believe the existing dedicated, high pressure, high volume system is superior. when the issue bond items come before the full board, i would urge the supervisors to amend the language to delete the references to potable water and have references simply read emergency firefighting water system. finally, it should be noted that only the north basin of sunset reservoir has been seismically retrofitted, so south basin could rupture in a seismic event. a 10-year capital plan as scheduled to do a risk analysis

in years nine and 10 for an assessment of south basin. this does not include plans to actually retrofit south basin. thank you. >> secretary: thank you for sharing your comment. next caller please. >> caller: supervisors, i am francisco decosta. i have been reviewing this subject for the last 40 years. what i see is the board of supervisors as well as the fire department are not including some heavy duty institutional experience. i know about 10 of them, but i mention two. mr. brasswell and mr. joseph.

the san francisco public utilities commission has much to be desired. if you supervisors don't figure that out, then you should not even address this situation. with $4.6 billion bond measure, nobody, nobody is challenging the sfpuc as to how many miles have been replaced of clean drinking water. nobody has challenged them as to the seismic retrofit. so when the dayment comes for

the fire, you can all dream about what equipment you have, but more of the pipes will fail. and that is all i'll say. some of you all need an orientation so that you all can do a good needs assessment rather than talking about this, that, and the other and including an underground and nonsense of that nature which we will not have the money to affordment >> secretary: thank you. do we have any further callers? >> mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you, mr. clerk. and thank you, operations. with no further callers, public comment is now closed on this item. supervisor mar, any concluding comments or thoughts to share? >> supervisor: thanks, chair

preston. again, i want to really thank our presenters for their discussion with us today. and all the departments for all their work on this really incredibly important project. and to ensure that all neighborhoods in our city are protect and safe in the event of a major emergency. and thanks, community members, for the opportunity to have this hears, committee members. this is obviously an ongoing issue. there is still a lot of important planning and analysis that is still going to happen this year. and some deadlines coming up on june 30, and also for the two analyses that were highlighted in this hearing. and then there is a deadline of december 31 or the end of the year for a comprehensive further department to present a comprehensive plan. i would ask that we continue this hearing to the call of the chair.

>> thank you, supervisor mar. and again, just to thank you for your work on this over quite a long period of time and your work on this and our thanks to the folks who spoke today but also to recognize a lot of departments are involved in moving us forward here. we have made significant progress. still some more work to do but want to recognize the various groups involved and i am sure others that i am missing, but appreciate all the work. and then mr. clerk, do we need a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? >> i hear a motion requested by guest supervisor mar, but the

motion would have to be offered by one of the members of the panel. >> thank you. do we have a motion, colleagues? >> so moved. >> moved by supervisor mandelman. >> on the motion offered by supervisor mandelman, this hearing be continued to the call of the chair. vice chair chan? >> aye. >> chan, aye. >> member mandelman? >> aye. >> mandelman, aye. and chair preston? >> aye. >> clerk: preston, aye. mr. chair, there are three aye's. >> thank you, mr. clerk. and thank you, again, supervisor mar. mr. clerk, will you call agenda items 2 through 9 please? >> agenda items are several ordinances and resolutions settling lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city. members of the public should call the public comment number

now which is still 415-655-0001. and enter the meeting i.d. which is 146 181-2723. press the pound symbol twice to connect to the meeting and the star key followed by the number 3 to enter the queue to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may then begin your comment. mr. chair? >> thank you, mr. clerk. let's open the items up for public comment before the closed session please. >> can you connect us to any callers if we have any callers that want to comment on the litigation agenda. >> mr. chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> thank you. so with no callers, public comment on these items is now closed.

and on the motion -- do we have a motion to convene in closed session on these items? >> so moved. >> so moved by supervisor mandelman. mr. clerk, call the roll. >> on the motion to convene in closed session, vice chair chan. >> yay present. aye. >> clerk: chan, aye. member mandelman? >> aye. >> mandelman, aye. chair preston? >> aye. >> preston, aye. mr. chair, there are three aye's. >> thank you, mr. clerk. so colleagues, we will now convene in closed session.

>> good morning, welcome. i'm michael lambert, your city librarian. on behalf of the library commission, we're so delighted that you could join us today for this important announcement. i would like to acknowledge our library commissioners that are present, teresa, tanya, pete,

john, and dr. lopez. thank you all for being here. madam mayor, welcome. we are so honored that you could participate in this event. we appreciate your leadership of our city and we are super excited about your announcement today. with that, i will invite you to get us started. maybe i was premature on that. oh, there she is. [laughter] >> did we start already? [laughter] >> i was just welcoming you and thanking you for honoring us with your presence and your leadership. we're super excited about your announcement today.

with that, i invite you to get us started. >> all right thank you michael. i appreciate that. good morning everyone. i'm really excited to share some incredible news. as you may know, before i was mayor and even before i was on the board of supervisors, i served as the executive director in the western edition. i saw how deeply important arts are and in creating a vibrant and diverse community. believe it or not, i used to sing in a choir, dance, and perform, but i was not the best at it. however, the arts connects us to one another. it bridges the gap in our culture by helping us understand each other. they are how we express ourselves during our brightest and happiest moments, and sometimes some of our darkest ones. for people of all ages, arts and culture can help us navigate a world that can be confusing and strange.

they can also provide opportunity not only for jobs and income, but for people who are in under served communities to find their voices and to make sure they are heard. that includes the role of our city's poet laureate. since lauren was made our first poet laureate in 1998, this prestigious honor has showcased san francisco's finest poets from many diverse backgrounds. their work has reminded us how it means to be a san franciscan, it reminus -- reminds us of our diversity and calls attention to our most pressing issues and inspires us to create a more equitable and just society. it inspires young people to search for their voice in a way that may not have -- that they may not have thought was

possible before. it opens doors of opportunities for them to pursue their dreams. that is why i'm so excited today to announce our eighth poet laureate. before we get to the big announcement, i would like to thank and recognize our outgoing poet laureate kim shuck for her imcredible service for our city. she represented our city beautifully through her work and has given her time over the past few years to serve our community. whether teaching at the local colleges, universiies and public schools or helping the library launch their first ever american indian initiative, kim on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, thank you for your service and we would be honored if you close out your tenure with one last reading as poet laureate. >> thank you mayor breed.

there we are. i do have a poem. it's called san francisco has a new poet laureate. pick any bench, stoop, any fourth star in this city or over it. sit quietly, you'll hear the water of time. keys rattling, heart and innovation, war and colonization that only grows on the south side of that mountain right there. you'll hear the poetry of place, popsicle sticks scratching on the curb, jump rope songs, chess moves and love curses. every night in some back room, the future and past in autopsied words, gorilla words shouted at unsuspecting somewhere in north beach. the skyline mutters poems that

have been and poems to come. if you stand at the cafe's door too long, you will hear what they choose to call in this moment a poem. old wives tales along valencia, you can hear the purring of fog as they pass through, the paintings comment quietly on every new show and if your hearing is very good, ambrose's dictionary runs on a certain bar on a certain bar stool and the faint laughter from one of sam's jokes will still grind breath. victims in more languages that you can see, and the unbound seat 3. there are songs of varying and unbaring to found all over the richmond, every bench, every head stone under the sand. paula talks stories at state, at

tables and cafes that turned to bars. john's words rattled justice and the voices of those taken in captain jack's war has made them into their own songs too. there is an eighth poet laureat of san francisco and with the title comes more wealth and words than all the great libraries that have ever been. i would like to add that you will hear a lot about honor and responsibility. there are a couple of tricky things. one of them is that people will steal your pens. i had some pens printed up. i'm not going to say what they say and i don't think they will prevent your pens from being stolen, but they will raise the value of their resale on ebay. i'm going to share with you just very briefly what dr. jose said to me a couple of days after i was named the seventh poet laureate. he said that everything you have done up until this point got you here and none of that will

matter. what matters now is what comes next. have a great time and you do know where my kitchen table is when you want to hide. take care. >> thank you so much kim for that amazing poem. thank you for representing san francisco so well over the past few years. we look forward to seeing what comes next for you. now, it is my great honor to announce our eighth poet laureat. i had the privilege of knowing this individual for many years as he worked and volunteered at the african american art and culture complex. he has mentored men young men and women that came through our doors and taught them how to find their own vote and make themselves heard. his poems are just one of the many ways he fights for racial justice, equity, and human rights. he has shown our community what

it means to be a successful poet, as a black man from san francisco. we are incredibly proud of the work he has done so far, especially his commitment to inspiring black men and boys and providing support for young people in our community. he will continue the work that our ancestors did as they fought for their own voices to be heard. i am beyond excited to see what he accomplishes as the san francisco's eighth poet laureate. i am happy to present tongo martin, the eighth poet laureate. >> thank you madam mayor for this incredible, incredible honor. i prepared some words that i hope i make it through. i'm already filled with tears.

>> i'm going to let you have the floor, it's so great to have you. thank you for all the magic you created over the years. as i said earlier, when we work together at the complex, there were a lot of challenges, especially with our boys and we had unfortunately a lot of violence in the community and just seeing you as this literary figure and inspiring these young people to look at other ways besides, you know, being out in the streets and doing stuff that was happening then, focusing on how poetry, how music is poetry, and how they can really shift their voices to tell their own stories. you brought that to their lives and i know they continue to carry it with them today. so, you have been an inspiration

for so many years, directed at so many generations of people. i'm so grateful that you accepted this honor so now i want to turn the floor over to you so that people can know who you are. if they don't know, now they know. we're looking forward to the work that we know you're going to do to make san francisco proud. so the floor is yours tongo. >> thank you. thank you very much. incredibly humbled and honored. also, deep appreciation to the selection committee. i want to send love to my mother and brother as i am only an extension of their love, imagination, and revolutionary commitment, love to my two powerful sisters and the whirlwind that has nothing on

us, love to my family above mud and lava, love to my father and the rest of the village that is not here in the physical form. i would also like to thank kim shuck for being a leader of poets and beautiful force of the people. a poet of any station is secondary to the people. a poet of any use, that belongs to the energy and consciousness of the people, one of arts most important incarnation is that expression of mass resistance but really what art teaches us with its dominantable energy, the indominantable energy of an

idea is evident that it is oppressors themselves who are in the position of resistance. it's bigger than any imperialistic, cognitively reflected in any generation. the power is ours and it is oppressors who are resisting us, resisting humanity, resisting us pretty well. it's resisting our right to determine our reality, resisting a coming epoch of liberation. mass participation in art is what is always created in san francisco, futurism. san francisco has legend too fearless for me to count myself as one of them. i am from this legendary collection of thousands and

thousands of participants, revolutionary history and culture. i'm proud to be one of the anonymous thousands in san francisco who have road these buses all night, who has been raised in marcus's bookstore, who wants justice for mario woods and alex, who wants freedom. what the people taught me is that unity is the only thing and taught me that individualism, as it is practiced and codified, romanticized in this society is not really about your adventure through life but at its core, unfortunately, individualism is about practicing the selective humanization. other people are only human beings when it suits individual interest. civilism of sorts, that is

deeply connected to slavery, both from what the society evolved from and process that addicts you to and power struggle that alienates ourselves, and at no point do we find the dehumanization of other people, the deanimation of people acceptable, are let alone necessary for an individual journey. so as much as i would love to assign the rest of my days to an individual invention, that time is over. history is heightening, showing us more and more everyday that we're part of people, a people beyond systemic description, and we need the entire pallet of protecting human rights and nurture human curiosity. the madness we see today

shouldn't be surprising. these apartheid nativity scenes come home to roast and a capitalism in crisis, what is mixed in with the parole papers and the environmental racism and program deliverables and passivism. we're in a time of epochal shift where this is opening its arms if we don't open the historical process more critically. where do we go from here? what is our revolutionary practice or more conveniently, it begins with cultural work. it transforms the way that we relate to each other, transforms

the way we relate to the earth, to a way that is conducive to liberation. a poet belongs to the energy and consciousness of the people, respecting their spirit. my only aim as poet laureate is to join with that energy, join with that consciousness in order to create vehicles of unity. events, workshops, readings, publications, these are all just vehicles of unity. i will never tire in building as many as the city can handle. so, meet me at the library. [laughter] >> if you can't make it, i will for sure meet you wherever you are. let me now say rest in power to

cure junior and diane, and i will conclude with this poem titled faithless. a tour guide, through the robbery, he also is. cigarette stand, look at what i did. ransom water and box spring gold, this decade is only for accent grooming, i guess. ransom water and box spring gold to corner store, war gangs, all these rummage junk. you know, the start of mass destruction begins and ends in restaurant bathrooms as some people use and other people clean. are you telling me there is a rag in the sky waiting for you? yes. we should have fit in. warehouse jobs are for communists and now the whistling is less playful and if it is not

a city, it is a prison. it has a prison. it's a prison, not a city. when a courtyard talks on behalf of the military issue, all walk takes place outside the body. a medieval painting to your right, none of this makes an impression. you have five minutes to learn. when a man goes sideways barb wire becomes the roof. did you know they killed the world for the sake of giving everyone the same back story? watching indiana, fight yourself into the sky, oh penny for when. it goes up and over your headache, marking all aspirations, the first newspaper i ever read and the storefront, they left us down where the holy spirit favors the bathroom. for those in the situation offer 100 ways to remain a loser. watching those clock, what are

we talking about again? the narrater at the graveyard, 10 minute flat. the funeral only took 10 minutes. you're going to pin the 90s on me, all 30 years of them? why should i know the difference between sleeping and the pyramid of corner stores on our head. we die right away. that building wants to jump off other buildings, those are down tone decisions. what evaporated on earth that we can be sent back down? thank you all again, much love. i want to give the whole roll call right now but that's too many. much love to all my family and thank you again madam mayor. thank you. san francisco for better for worse, which you are raised, you know?

>> thank you so much tongo. just so you know, the chat is blowing up. there is so much love and excitement for what you will bring to san francisco and i just want to thank you so much. thank you for the incredible poem and your inspiration and just everything that you continue to do. i look forward to what you will accomplish as our city's poet laureate. i can't wait. it's going to be exciting, especially when we open up. when you talk about meet me at the library, it's like that's your slogan now. [laughter] >> so we're going to take it to another level. that's your slogan, meet me at the library. hitting all the libraries all over san francisco. >> that's right. >> just inviting the people in and really bringing it back to some of the basics. you know, with the way technology is nowadays, sometimes we get away from just

picking up a book or picking out a book or looking through an index card. i guess we don't look through index cards to find books anymore. sitting there and having discussions, i'm looking forward to what you're going to bring and really excited about that. i really want to thank the people that nominated you. you know, there was a really compelling, you know, letter of support that you know, went into all the details about your work. you have a lot of fans out there. i want to thank the selection committee, the people who served and had to go through all of those applications because i got to tell you, it was a hard decision and i was so excited that so many people in san francisco, you know, really embraced and support poets in such an incredible way. there are so many wonderful nominees. i'm looking forward to you connecting with all of them as well and really the outgoing

poet laureate kim shuck, thank you for that poem and your commitment to san francisco and the role you have played over the years. thank you to san francisco public library and the commissioners who are joining us here today and our librarian, michael lambert. so many amazing people and i think that based on your comments today, meet me at the library, that's going to be a new part of the campaign to really bring people together, to inspire and to really you know, set things off on a whole other level. thank you tongo for your work and commitment. we're so honored that you will be san francisco's eighth poet laureate and if there is anything left to say, you're welcome to have the floor. if not, we can turn it back over to michael lambert. >> i just want to say much love and appreciation. >> great. >> thank you so much madam mayor. my heart is full,

#meetmeatthelibrary. congratulations tongoo. i want to thank all of you for joining us this morning. our public affairs office is happy to help facilitate any interviews with our new poet lawyer -- laureate, thank you all and have a great day. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

this is my computer? this is your computer. let's go on the internet. let's go. click it? yes. ok. i cursor in between the r and the e. when i say dot, i want you to just push the period. she's going to love me all over again now. that's it! jamaica here you come! here we go. all right.

good job. thank you. thank you. i did it. by myself. feel smarter.