>> good afternoon. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the february 13, 2023, regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor melgar, chair of the committee joined by vice-chair supervisor, preston and board president, peskin and the community clerk is erica major and i would like to acknowledge jason and james at sfgovtv for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have announcements >> yes, thank you, madam chair. the board of supervisors and its committees are convening hybrid meetings that allow in-person attendance and public comment while providing public access via telephone and the board recognizes that accessible

public access is essential and we'll be taking public comments as follow. first public comment is taken on each item on the agenda and those attending in person first will be allowed to speak and moving to remote call in and for those watching 26, 78, 99 and sfgovtv, the public call in public call in number is across the street, the number is 415-655-0001. again the number is 41-565-5001 and enter the meeting id24822584704 and press pound and pound again and you'll hear the meeting discussion but you'll be in listening mode only. when your item of interest coming up and public comment is called, those joining in person should line up to your right near the curtains and those on the telephone line should press star three to join the remote call-in cues. if you're on your telephone, please remember to turn down your television and all listening devices you may be using. as indicated, we'll be

taking public comment from those attending in person first and we'll go to our remote call-in line. you can submit written public comment to myself, the land use and transportation clerk at erica dot major@sfgov organize and submit it to the supervisors and made a part of the official file. you may also send your written comments to us at city hall, 1 dr. carlton b goodlet place, san francisco, 94102 and items are on the agenda of february 27th unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> thank you, to add -- if you're in the chambers, be respectful to those around you and provide adequate spacing if you're seated or speaking. madam

clerk, please call item no. one. >> item no. one is an ordinance amending the planning code to update and reorganize zoning district controls including among other things permit accessory, arts, activities and production, wholesaling and goods of commodities and permit arts, activities, job training, public facility, and social service and philanthropic facility uses in the folsom street neighborhood commercial transit (nct), soma nct, regional commercial, and certain eastern neighborhoods mixed use districts, and in historic and nonconforming commercial buildings in residential enclave districts -- and if you wish provide public comment, call 415-655-0001. and item 24822584704. madam clerk. >> we have madison representing supervisor dorsey is a sponsor and we have aaron star from planning. and i understand you

have some amendments that -- >> yes. so, good afternoon, chair melgar, president peskin, supervisor preston. i'm excited to be here today to speak about this ordinance. it's 211 pages and it was sitting on my desk within two days of me starting here nine months ago so this has been quite a journey. it has been a journey because this is one of the final pieces of the planning department reorganize project going on since 2014. before or beyond this administrative cleanup, this ordinance makes changing that aaron star will speak to. i want to thank him for being my partner and walking me through the intra keys of zoning and this legislation is the byproduct of community input discussion and compromise. and i want to thank selma for bringing this joyce to the table and thank tom from livable city who helped me untangle the years of history around this zoning and many of the policy discussions

that took place many years ago. this ordinance is particularly pertinent after the mayor state of the city address where she spoke about creating arts and entertainment district and what the feature of downtown looks that and that allows more art in institutional uses and there's a number of amendments i'll speak to and one is sub sfative and i circulated these with your staff and they are on your desk as a hard copy. first is amending the zoning tables that overlap with the boundaries between 7th street and 11 and 11th between howard and division to make the general and nighttime language consistent with the file that we are voting on tomorrow 22104 and the second is exempting childcare facilities from faf limits in the red, rdmx south park districts and what that, i'm going to turn it over to aaron star. >> thank you, ms. tam. welcome,

mr. star. >> good afternoon, supervisors, aaron star, manager of legislative affairs for the planning department. the item before is amending the planning code to bring the eastern neighborhoods and mixed-use code with -- and make several substantive amendments in the districts. so, the organization effort started in 2014 and i know supervisor melgar probably remembers that from her time on the commission. with the intent of standardizing and consolidating it into one section of the code and zoning table. articles 2/7 are complete and this will bring all eastern neighborhoods to the new format and the final ordinance is for downtown residential districts.

beyond the non-substantive changes, ordinance makes several substantive changes and i'll provide a brief overview of those right now. by category. the first is accessory use controls. the ordinance proposes to amend article eight and article two to align with article seven accessory use controls to create connen consistency throughout the city and it provides more than 1/3 of retail spaces and spaces can have -- it amends the accessory use controls to allow live performance permits in the mug, mur and mrdx districts and proposes to allow restaurants to have accessory catering uses just like limited restaurants are allowed to have now. for ground floor controls in eastern mixed-use districts, the

projects that provide more than ten thousand ground feet will require commercial space in ranges of sizes including some spaces of one thousand square feet or smaller. for entertainment and recreation uses, it will allow recreation in the eastern neighborhood minuted use districts and remove the planning codes good neighbor policies for nighttime entertainment from the code and require compliance with the entertainment commissions neighborhood policies. and nighttime entertainment and general entertainment will be permitted for properties fronting on folsom street between 7 and division street and properties on 11th street between howard street and division and that's the compromise ms. tam spoken about. the ordinance would permit bar uses on the second floor on the folsom street and ct and regional commercial district.

forren still tuitional uses, it would live allies job training and public facilities and social service and philanthropic facilities and religious facilities in the folsom district and allow community facilities and private facilities and public facilities, schools, social service or philanthropic facilities and trade school uses to be principally permitted in historic district in the red and redm districts and remove mcd's in the salary district. for (indiscernible) uses it would require automobile sale and rental facilities to be in enclosed buildings and prohibit parking lots in the salary district and prohibit parking lots and garages and allow conditional use authorization for private parking garages in the red-mx districts. for

residential-uses, it would remove the prevision that allowed sor buildings to have rear large yards in residential buildings and align eastern neighborhood districts with the previsions in prop h, so it would remove three notification for permits uses. and i believe this is limited to the eastern neighborhood planned areas so it wouldn't extend into the ume districts. it would allow for the same day 30 permit timeline in the eastern neighborhoods and the mc districts and permits as long as they adhere to the restrictions adopted in prop h. other amendments, it would allow large scale agricultural to be permitted in the eastern neighborhood districts. the far in the south park district red and red-mx would be amended to

allow, i'm sorry, that is changed. it would, sorry, they to -- in those districts residential care facilities and childcare facilities would be exempt from far, that was a change that the planning commission had asked for and the supervisor accommodated. and it would allow the react vase of lcua with the zoning administrator approval rather than having a conditional use hearing. so, the planning commission heard this item on november 17th and recommend approval with modifications to one that i talked about, rather than amending the far ratios in those districts, ex many childcare and residential. it removed language references lighting standards in the planning departments guidelines which we don't have and don't enforce. it would remove for post changes to relax nighttime

entertainment controls and every zoning district. to amend the ordinance, nighttime entertainment is permitted for properties between 7th and division street and properties on 11th street between howard and division street unless the properties are zoned red-mx and it will have an opening for those to meet the zoning that prohibits entertainment within two hundred feet of the red and red-m and and mitigate impacts from noise and other quality-of-life impacts related to nighttime entertainment uses and then here is a map of what the changes to the nighttime and general entertainment would be, so it would only be permitted along where the blacked out properties are there. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions,

thank you. >> okay. go ahead, supervisor, president peskin. >> thank you, madam chair. a couple of three questions through the chair to mr. star. all of which were true of which we have discussed online and one question to the city attorney. at a high level, this is all good, thank you for your work, not only on this but on all of the code reorganization projects that have been forwarded to this board over time with this one sounding like maybe the last one, so congratulations on a long turn project finally wrapping up. the three questions i have, one i pointed out to you which was a change to the conditional use previsions at section 303, having to do with a long-standing, before i think all of our times prevision about

adult business where there's been a long-standing code prevision back to the days of then zoning administrator bob. i think he might have been responsible for it, for suggesting it to the board of supervisors in those days which i think was in the 1970s or early 80s. and that was the no adult entertainment within one thousand feet of another and that prevision was stricken at page 23, do you know why? that's much more than an selma situation that has implications for the entire city and the tenderloin? >> yeah. i don't know the exact reason for that. i think it might have just been cleaning up the language in there from the drafter. i would like to check in section 202.2 just to make sure there aren't operating conditions already in place and so it's not getting rid of

something duplicative. >> we have time because we have to continue anyway so maybe we can get to the bottom of that, in the interim -- the other was why group housing in particular was added to section 803.8, which i now understand in our brief conversation is just another or could be another form of low-income housing and i guess we can use the two weeks to talk to folks to make sure that the community is okay with that, but i did have a question for the city attorney on that, which is, it would appear, although a small one, that this could be considered to be an upzoning. >> well, we'll have two weeks to look at that question and to see if we need to pair it with something else, so we'll look at that question in the next two weeks. >> you can see how my mind is working. [laughter] and then finally, on the removal

of the previsions in the planning code that defined nighttime, that defined the good neighbor policies, basically, i wanted to check with the department and with my colleagues that in essence what that means is, we're taking them out of law that is controlled by this and future boards of supervisors and we're putting them into a policy that can be changed at any time without the approval of the board of supervisors because it is a policy under the entertainment commission and its department. do i have that right? >> you would know more than i would on that but the planning department isn't very good at enforcing those because -- >> the entertainment commission has a better knowledge of nighttime entertainment and the functions and who owns and all of that so they are more appropriate agency to deal with the enforcement of that. that's

the thinking of that. >> i don't want to put words in my colleagues mouth, but we would agree that's the appropriate place for monitoring an enforcement and indeed, those are the folks who got out of the decimal meters and all that good stuff but the question i have a question for this board which is, to the extent that it's not codified somewhere, i just don't want us to in be a position where a non elected body says we're going to change 90 decibels and the public doesn't get to come to the board of somewheres and say yes we do support that or no we don't. it's how it's codified. if we were taking these out of the planning code and putting them in the entertainment code, i would be saying one but if we're taking them out of the law and putting them into mallable policy by people who are not ultimately accountable to the

voters, it makes me nervous. it doesn't make me nervous today or nervous but in five years when people forget. >> i understand the concern. and we can look into that and see how we can codify them but when they are in the planning code, we're in charge of enforcing them and as great as we are in the planning department, we're not good at enforcing those. >> you guys are doing the tenderloin plan and everything else, never mind! counselor, am i right that it's going from law to non-law? >> again, i'm happy to look at that in the next two weeks. it's a long ordinance so i can't speak to every prevision but i'm happy to talk to mr. star about it. >> it's only one hundred odd sum pages. we have plenty of time to figure those three things out. thank you. >> thanks.

>> i had one quick question. just remind me because i really don't remember, so if a cannabis cultivation -- is it a different category than large agricultural? >> you're not the first to ask it. it's a farm that has heavy equipment. we don't think this will be a lot in the eastern neighborhood. >> it could be like indoor lettuce. >> that's agricultural use. anything indoors like a greenhouse facility, which cannabis falls under is industrial agricultural. >> cannabis is the same definition? >> yes. >> oh, that's a problem but okay. that's not this legislation, thank you. >> anything else, colleagues? okay. with that, let's go public comment madam clerk. >> thank you, madam clerk.

-- any public comment want to speak. seeing none. we have four listening with one in the key. if you would like to speak on item one, press star three. and i see we have one person in the queue. let's take that caller, please. >> hello. county supervisors, is for taking my call. my name is james hewitt and i'm assistant businessman energy for the international union of planters and ali trades. we bought a building on 65 oak grove street and for the last nine months, i've been trying to do some ada compliance as in putting in an elevator and do upgrade to the glazing and the external of the building and i was told that this file here actually makes my

usage as a union hall legal in the city and county of san francisco, so i'm here to speak in favor of file no. 2203340 and i'm hoping that allows me to do my ada compliant work and get my union hall local in city of san francisco. other than that, thank you for your time. >> thank you so much and that completes the queue, madam chair. >> okay. public comment on this time is closed. [gavel] so, i would like to move to adopt the amendment as has been circulated -- as have been -- have been circulated by supervisor dorsey and continue to a week as it's substantive. two weeks, i'm sorry. and on the motion to amend, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston?

>> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. you have three ayes. and on the motion to continue to the february 27th land use date, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. that motion passes, thank you. it is, mr. tam, mr. star. let's go to item two, please. >> time number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to add definition and tourist and transient use under the residential hotel unit conversion and demolition ordinance to set the term of ten antsy for such use at less than the seven days or two years. it's a case-by-case basis to amend the definition of permanent resident and affirm the appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number

415-655-0001. the meeting it is 24822584704. then press pound and pound again and if you have not done so and would like to speak, press star three. madam chair. >> thank you, madam clerk. supervisor peskin. thank you for working on this important issue. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair melgar. i want to thank my chief of staff sunny ann gula for sticking with this issue and bottom lining it now for half a dozen years. and this is not a new issue for the san francisco board of supervisors. the initial legislation that is chapter 41 of the administrative code goes back to 1979 when there was a profound understanding that our

single resident occupancy stock was plummeting and being converted to, in many instances, tourist hotel uses and 40 years ago, the board of supervisors passed legislation to address this issue. today, we're down to some 19,000 units down from about 35,000 units for housing for people on low and extremely low-incomes. a number of years ago in 2017, the board of supervisors unanimously adopted amendments which i proposed relative to updating the chapter 41 ordinance, which mayor lee then signed into law that was the recipient of a subsequent ceqa lawsuit. this addresses

that challenge. i want to thank and acknowledge lisa gibson and her staff at the planning department and our deputy city attorneys for crafting an extraordinary environmental document, this negative declaration is a fascinating historical read as well as an excellent ceqa document that does indeed determine that this project, the legislation could not have a significant affect on the environment and the negative declaration was the subject of an appeal to the planning commission, the planning commission after deliberation and consideration rejected said appeal and now the legislation is finally right for us to pass, which legislation includes as recommended by the court and amortization period. there's one

teeny tiny small amend which is reference the appropriate file and i would like to amend the subject ordinance on page 2 at line 20 to strike the incorrect previous file 190946 and replace it with the correct file 220815. and with that, colleagues, i have no further comments. >> okay. my comment to you, thank you so much for sticking to it through the years. so, if there's no other comments or questions, colleagues, let's go to public comment on this item, please. >> thank you, madam chair. members of the public who would like to speak on item no. two? seeing none, we'll go to the remote call-in line. we have zero callers in the queue, madam chair. >> i'm sorry. one caller popped

up. let's take that caller. >> good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is bryan o'neal, attorney for hotel arts and representing other homeowners and sor's and my clients made a life for them receives in san francisco with family business operating in sor. this is a lawful business renting rooms by the week with seasonal tourist rentals allowed by law. the city is well aware that our clients will be particularly affected by this ordinance but we were provided month notice in today's hearing. we submitted a letter to you via e-mail this afternoon, but due to lack of notice and insufficient time we respectfully request today's hearing be continued. i would also refer you to our previous filings and bos file no. 161291,

190049, 191258, and 190946. the ordinance before you today will take a bay our clients business without compensation. and the worst harm is inflected on the people the city is trying to a tekt and the sor occupants. many of these occupants are unable to pay a month's rent in advance and let alone a security depositive i. and this ordinance may be intention, and there's harms in the environmental impacts which haven't been evaluated in ceqa review. the proposal is illegal for a number of additional reasons. the amortization period is insufficient and the extension hearing process is overly vague. and the bis is not empowered to hold hearings in the first place. the charter grants the bic with certain powers and serving as quasi judge is not one of those powers. nor does the board of supervisors have the ability to grant that power. the bic was created by a voter

charter amendment and it's an administrative amendment and we're doing functions that falls outside its (indiscernible). it also discriminates between sor owners and tourist hotel owners and owners of other nonconforming uses. >> thank you for your time. let's take the next caller. if you would like to speak and we're on item number two, press star three. otherwise, we'll take this last caller. >> hello, good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors. this is ryan paterson, also representing the hotel and sor owners and i wanted to add briefly that i understand from supervisor peskin that the ordinance is being amended. well, that may seem substantial and changing the ordinance file no. it's a significant change in terms of noticing. we received no notice of this hearing today. and therefore request this be

continued so the corrected version of the ordinance can be circulated and the public has sufficient notice to comment meaningfully. we did submit written comment letters to you via e-mail this afternoon and we request that you take a look at that and consider it before taking action on this matter. perhaps, most the ordinance proposes to take away the sro and its lawful business and sell it back to them via the administrative code section 41.13 conversion process. at great expense. that's unconstitutionalal along with much else in the ordinance and again, we thank you for your time and ask this be continued or voted down. >> thank you so much for your comments. and we're checking to see if there's anymore callers in the queue. there are no more

callers in the queue, madam chair. >> thank you. public comment on this item is closed. [gavel] >> madam chair? >> yes -- president peskin. >> they are welcome to see us in a competent jurisdiction court again. >> thank you. would you like to make a motion -- >> i would like to make a motion to send the amended file to the full board. >> on those motions, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. [gavel] madam clerk, do we have any other items on the agenda today? >> that completes the agenda, oh, i'm sorry. >> yes, go ahead. deputy city attorney. >> before we end this meeting, could you give me a minute to look up something quickly. i want to check something.

>> why don't we recess for five minutes. let's do a five-minute recess. >> that's perfect. thank you. [recess] >> okay. land use and transportation committee for february 13th, we are back in session. madam clerk, after conferring with the depth see city attorney, i'll turn it to you deputy peskin. >> i would like to rescind the vote on item no. two? >> and on that motion, supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> and just for the record, the vote was to rescind the amendment from page 2, line 20 for 19 -- >> no, the amendment was to rescind, thank you for your

clarification through the chair, madam clerk, was to rescind sending it to the full board. [multiple voices] >> keeping the amendment. >> got it. >> now that we have voted to not send it to the full board, i would like to make a motion to continue this to our next meeting on february 27th. >> and on the motion to continue as amended to the february 27th date, supervisor peskin? >> aye. >> supervisor preston? >> aye. >> supervisor melgar? >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> that motion passes. madam clerk, do we -- no. do we have any other item s the agenda? >> that completes the agenda. >> we are now adjourned. thank you. [gavel]

>> in august 2019 construction began on the new facility at 1995 evans avenue in bayview. it will house motorcycle police and department of forensic services division. both sfpd groups are in two

buildings that need to be vacated. they will join the new $183 million facility in late 2021. >> elements of the cfi and the traffic company are housed at the hall of justice, which has been determined to be seismically unfit. it is slated for demolition. in addition to that the forensic services crime lab is also slated for demolition. it was time and made sense to put these elements currently spread in different parts of the city together into a new facility. >> the project is located in the bayview area, in the area near estes creek. when san francisco was first formed and the streetcars were built back it was part of the bay. we had to move the building as close to the edge as possible on bedrock and solid elements piles

down to make sure it was secure. >> it will be approximately 100,000 square feet, that includes 8,000 square feet for traffic company parking garage. >> the reason we needed too new building, this is inadequate for the current staffing needs and also our motor department. the officers need more room, secured parking. so the csi unit location is at the hall of justice, and the crime laboratory is located at building 60 sixty old hunters point shipyard. >> not co-located doesn't allow for easy exchange of information to occur. >> traffic division was started in 1909. they were motor officers. they used sidecars. officers who road by themselves without the sidecar were called

solo. that is a common term for the motorcycle officers. we have 45 officers assigned to the motorcycles. all parking at the new facility will be in one location. the current locker room with shared with other officers. it is not assigned to just traffic companies. there are two showers downstairs and up. both are gym and shop weres are old. it needs constant maintenance. >> forensic services provides five major types of testing. we develop fingerprints on substances and comparisons. there are firearms identification to deal with projectiles, bullets or cartridge casings from shootings. dna is looking at a whole an rare of evidence from -- array

of evidence from dna to sexual assault to homicide. we are also in the business of doing breath allyzer analysis for dui cases. we are resurrecting the gunshot residue testing to look for the presence of gunshot residue. lifespan is 50 years. >> it has been raised up high enough that if the bay starts to rise that building will operate. the facility is versus sustainable. if the lead gold highest. the lighting is led. gives them good lights and reduces energy use way down. water throughout the project we have low water use facilities. gardens outside, same thing, low water use for that.

other things we have are green roofs on the project. we have studies to make sure we have maximum daylight to bring it into the building. >> the new facility will not be open to the public. there will be a lobby. there will be a deconstruction motorcycle and have parts around. >> the dna labs will have a vestibule before you go to the space you are making sure the air is clean, people are coming in and you are not contaminating anything in the labs. >> test firing in the building you are generating lead and chemicals. we want to quickly remove that from the individuals who are working in that environment and ensure what we put in the air is not toxic. there are scrubbers in the air to ensure any air coming out is also at the cleanest standards. >> you will see that kind of at

the site. it has three buildings on the site. one is for the motorcycle parking, main building and back behind is a smaller buig evidence vehicles. there is a crime, crime scene. they are put into the secure facility that locks the cars down while they are examined. >> they could be vehicles involved in the shooting. there might be projectiles lodged in the vehicle, cartridge casings inside the vehicle, it could be a vehicle where a aggravated sexual occurred and there might be biological evidence, fingerprints, recovered merchandise from a potential robbery or other things. >> the greatest challenge on the project is meeting the scope requirements of the project given the superheated construction market we have been facing. i am proud to say we are

delivering a project where we are on budget. >> the front plaza on the corner will be inviting to the public. something that gives back to the public. the building sits off the edge. it helps it be protected. >> what we are looking for is an updated building, with facilities to meet our unit's needs. >> working with the san francisco police department is an honor and privilege. i am looking forward to seeing their faces as the police officers move to the new facility. >> it is a welcome change, a new surrounding that is free from all of the challenges that we face with being remote, and then the ability to offer new expanded services to the city and police department investigations unit. i can't wait until fall of 2021 when the building is finally

ready to go and be occupied and the people can get into the facility to serve them and serve the community. you're watching san francisco rising with chris manners. special guest is david chu. hi i'm chris manners and you're watching san francisco rising the show that's about restarting rebuilding and re imagining our city. i guess today is david chiu, the city attorney for the city and county of san francisco , and he's here today to talk to us about the opioid crisis, reproductive rights and the non citizen voting program. mr chu,

welcome to the show. thanks for having me on happy to talk about whatever you want me to talk about, so can we start by explaining the difference between the city attorney's office and the district attorney's office? i think it could be slightly confused. that is a very common fusion with members of the public so um, if you get arrested in san francisco by the san francisco police department, all criminal matters are dealt with by the san francisco district attorney . we handle all civil matters on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. what that means is a number of things. we provide advice and counsel to all actors within city government from our mayor. every member of the board of supervisors to the 100 plus departments, commissions boards that represent the city and county of san francisco. we also defend the city against thousands of lawsuits. so if you slip and fall in front of city hall if there's a bus accident if there is an incident involving the san francisco

police department, we defend those matters. we also bring lawsuits on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, where most famous for litigating and obtaining the constitutional right to marry for lgbtq couples have sued gun manufacturers, payday lenders, oil companies, you name it, who are undercutting the rights of san franciscans and the city and county of san francisco. so now moving on to the opioid crisis. i understand you've had some success in court, um, dealing with manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. could you elaborate a little bit on that for us, so the opioid industry and by that i refer to the legal industry that prescribes pain pills. um over years. uh, deceived americans and resulted in literally thousands upon thousands of deaths and tragedies that we see on our streets every day when it comes to the addictions that folks are

experiencing. many of the addictions really stemmed from what happened over a decade plus period where the prescription pain industry marketed prescription pills in ways that were false. we were one of thousands of jurisdictions around america that brought a lawsuit against the opioid industry. but we've had a particular set of successes that others have not. ah we initially brought a lawsuit a few years ago against every part of the opioid supply chain, and that included manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including pharmacies over the course of four plus years. a number of these corporate defendants settled with us. we've as of this moment brought in over $120 million of cash and services. to the city to help address the root causes of what we're talking about. but a few months ago, we had a really historic verdict against the pharmacy, walgreens and their role walgreens was responsible

for literally over 100 million pills, flooding the streets of san francisco over a period of years where they flouted federal law that require them to track where they're pills were going to. they had a what? what we refer to as a phil phil phil. pharmacy culture where folks would bring in their prescriptions, and the pharmacist would just fill them without checking why someone was coming in multiple times without checking why certain doctors were seen a 100 fold increase in the number of opioid prescriptions that they were prescribing. so we had a historic judgment against walgreens recently, but it's been a very intense lawsuit. and we know that will never bring back the lives that we have lost to opioid addictions. but it's critical for us that we get the resources that we need. maybe one other thing i'll mention because it's often confusion. a large percentage of folks who are addicted to street level

drugs say heroin or fentanyl started their addictions. with painkillers, opioid medications that were prescribed through doctors provided through pharmacies and so literally the suffering that we're seeing on our streets was caused by the opioid industry over many, many years and has created the significant crisis that we are dealing with right now. right right now moving on. i understand after the recent supreme court ruling, striking down robust as wade that you've put together an organization that's designed to help mm. provide free services to people who are both. seeking abortions and providing them can you tell us about the organization? sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would

be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country, and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these lawyers can bring against various states. in these areas that are looking to deprive women and patients and providers of their of their rights. um it

is a very dark time in america, and i'm really proud that that barrier attorneys, the legal community care have stepped up to answer the call. it's very important that's great. so now the non citizen voting program that was passed by voters just for school boards has faced them court challenges recently, but it was in place for the most recent election that we've had. how do you see that situation panning out? in fact, it's been in place for now. five school board elections. um so a little bit of background in our san francisco schools over one out of three kids. has a parent who is a non citizen who doesn't have a say in the election of the policy makers that dictate the future of our san francisco public schools, and so over a number of years, there has been a movement to allow immigrant parents to vote in school board elections. few things i'll mention about that is our country has a very long history when it comes to allowing immigrants to vote. from 17 76

for 100 and 50 years until after world war. one immigrants were allowed to vote in most states in our country on the theory that we want to assimilate immigrants in american democratic values and institutions, and it wasn't until an anti immigrant backlash in world war one that that sort of ended. but in recent years, um cities across america have allowed this to happen. in fact, at this moment, believe there are over a dozen cities that have voted to allow non citizens to vote in a number of context. now, this is particularly important in our schools just given how challenge our schools are, and given that we know that when we engage more parents in her school system, regardless of their citizenship it helps to lift up our schools for all parents. and so in 2016 the voters of san francisco past about measure that allowed this to happen. unfortunately earlier this year, there were conservative organizations that came to san francisco to bring a

lawsuit to try to overturn this , and i should also mention it is obviously the perspective of our office and our city that this is constitutional. nothing in the constitution prohibits non citizens from voting. and in fact, there's an explicit provision in the constitution that allows chartered cities like san francisco when it comes to school board elections to be able to dictate the time and manner of those elections. and so, uh, we are involved in litigation on this issue. there was an initial ruling that was not good for us that essentially said at the trial court level. we shouldn't allow this. um we appealed it up to the appellate level. the appellate court made an initial decision to allow this past november election to proceed as it has for the last previous four elections. we're going to be in front of that court soon. stay tuned. we'll see what happens. it was good to hear that the city was able to reach a settlement with the center for medicare and medicaid

services are meant laguna honda could still operate. how did you manage to reach that agreement? it was not an easy conversation . just a little bit of background. so laguna honda has been an incredibly important institution in san francisco for 150 years, taking care of our most vulnerable patients are frail, very elderly patients, many of whom are at end of life. and a few years ago, there were some issues in that hospital. some violations of rules that we very much want to make sure don't get violated. there were folks that weren't using proper ppe, who are bringing cigarette lighters into the facility, who might have brought some contraband into the facilities. we have zero tolerance for that and have made that very clear. we self reported some of these violations to the federal authorities. and unfortunately from our perspective, they took the very disproportionate step of ordering the closure. the permanent closure of lugano, honda. problematic on a number of reasons. first and foremost, there are just no skilled

nursing facility beds not just in california but around the country. after their order came down. we literally were putting 1000 calls a day to skilled nursing facilities around california and around the country and could find nowhere to move the 700 patients that we had had in the gonna honda but just as disturbingly as we were forced to start moving some of these patients, a number of them died. there's a concept in medicine known as transfer trauma. when you move someone who is that frail and unfortunately, folks folks died and we were at a point where we were five weeks away from the deadline for the federal government. that they had provided to us to close the facility. so uh and we have been trying for months to get the federal government to reconsider their action, so i was compelled to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the city and county of san francisco and very pleased and appreciate that we were able to come to a settlement whereby transfers will be delayed at

least until next year. we're going to have at least a year of funding. to keep the facility open, and hopefully we can get back up on our feet and ensure that no future violations occur because this is an institution that has to stay open for the good of these patients. quite right, quite right. so finally, congratulations on winning an important public power service dispute with pg and e. um why is it important that the city's rights as a local power provider maintained well, so san francisco has been a local power provider for decades. we are fortunate to have access through our hedge hetchy hydroelectric system to provide electricity to a number of providers, particularly public recipients of that. and unfortunately, pg any has used its monopoly when it comes to private electricity to try to stop that, and to block that, and from our perspective, they violated federal law in adding literally tens of millions of dollars of

expenses to san francisco and institutions that we're trying to ensure um, public power infrastructure. put years of delays on our ability to do this, and so we had to bring a number of appeals in the federal commission. ah we were successful in those appeals, and there was a decision recently that basically held the pg and e could not use its monopoly to unfairly delay or add tens of millions of dollars of cost. to the city and county of san francisco, as we are trying to move forward with our vision of public power. clearly pgd has not been able to serve not just san francisco but northern california. well we all know that with the wildfires with its bankruptcies, with all the issues that they've had, we think there is a different model to move forward on and we are grateful to the court. and providing a ruling that allows us to move forward. well thank you so much for coming on the show. i really appreciate the time you've given us here today. i appreciate and thanks for your thanks for your questions. thank

you. well that's it. for this episode, we'll be back with another one shortly for sf gov t v. i'm chris manners. thanks for watching. yeah.

>> welcome everyone. thank you so much for joining me today. the round table discussion. i actually have background in youth work. worked in china town before so having you four from youth commission join today is very interesting to hear your thoughts and concerns and what you are talking about from the youth