ms. goldstein. >> i have one question. that is, why would there be an interest of san francisco having in this injunction be ationwide? ms. van aken: i think san francisco has a minimum requirement because some of the funds we receive from the department of justice and from other federal agencies flow through california. so certainly our relief is not complete if an injunction doesn't extend at least stayed--- state-wide. i think beyond that it's a matter of district court discretion. the district court here found that facts about the appropriateness of an order like this wouldn't vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. and so in those cases, courts have appropriately entered -- courts have appropriately entered very broad injunctions. the article three limit on that we think is that an injunction can't be broader than the geographic scope of the harm. clearly the harm here from this executive order is nationwide. but we think it's a matter of district court discretion, rather than power, and the federal government here, ce

ms. goldstein retire without coming to say what a great pleasure it was to work with you over the past 10 years. you have filled the role very ably and have always been the consummate professional, exceedingly helpful when we have questions. we will miss you and i wanted to wish you the best but enjoy very much your well deserved retirement. >> the clerk: are there any other public comments. >> good evening, commissioners. scott sanchez. i'm here to express my sincere appreciation for director goldstein. i believe the board of appeals is the most respected departments because of the work of the commissioners and board staff. i think there's been a history of excellent leadership with the board of appeals and think ms. goldstein has filled some big shoes and honored the tradition of the board and further advanced the department but making it more publicly accessible. you can go back and see every first decision of the board of appeals. i don't know if commissioner fung was on that but it's impressive what she's done in here nearly 10 years with the board. also, i think she exemplifies the

ms. goldstein will speak more to that. but in particular, san francisco has submitted undisputed evidence that against the possibility of losing massive amounts of federal funding, it is reserve money that would otherwise be spent on social service programs, important public work, that is not being reserved at the hedge against the positive effect of defunding. and moreover, the coercive effect of the executive order process. cities are entitled to know what the law is and to sort of be told trust us when this executive order claims this very broad power and when federal officials continued to assert they will exercise very broad power and not a sufficient remedy. even if the court thinks that there is no prospect that irreparable harm or an unlikely prospect that irreparable harm is going to continue to be inflicted on cities and everyone is just going to follow the attorney general memorandum. i submit that we should not be required simply to trust the federal government on this. in the court teaches us that for those ca