>> the meeting will come to order. this is march 25, 2024 rules committee meeting. ing we'll soon be joined by supervisor ahsha safai. our clerk is victor young and like to thank janette from sfgovtv for broadcasting the meeting. i want to thank supervisor walton for filling in the last couple weeks as been recovering from a knee surgery and victor young and staff from the clerk office for help accommodate

recovering. mr. clerk, any announcements? >> yes, public comment will be taken on each item on the agenda. when your item comes up and public comment is called please line up. you may submit public comment to rules committee clerk at victor.young @sfgov.org. if you submit by e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and as part of the file. you may send the office at city hall, 1 dr. carlton b goodlett place. please silence cell phones and electronic devices. documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items expected to appear on the board of agenda of april 2, 2024 unless otherwise stated. that completes my announcements. >> thank you so much.

please read item 1. >> item 1, resolution accepting annual surveillance reports under administrative code, section 19b.6, for the following departments: >> thank you and we have julia here to present. >> good morning chair ronan, supervisor safai and supervisor walton. my name is julia, the privacy analyst for the committee on information technology, and today i am here to present on behalf of the committee on information technology. the 2023 annual surveillance reports. we are requesting that the board of supervisors accepts the reports. next slide, please. sorry. first, i like to present the list of annual reports submitted. in compliance with administrative code section 19b.6, the committee on

information technology known as coit is pleased to submit surveillance reports for following technology on behalf of their departments. these technology include audio recorders, license plate reader, bio metric paussing software, non security camera, computer time print management, drone, location management system, radio frequency identification. security cameras, social media monitoring technology and third party cameras. these policies in the compiled reports submitted to the board of supervisors along with a memo on february 8, 2023 incompass 23 departments and 44 reports. each report representing a policy. and for the summary of the all the annual surveillance reports

for 2023, first i'll give a general overview of the 19b.6 annual surveillance report process . chapten 19b requires city departments with board approved surveillance technology policies to complete annual surveillance report for each policy in each subsequent year. the annual report offers departments a opportunity to report proposed changes to the policy, violations any complaints from the publics as well as report on the effectiveness of the technology in achieves the purpose. this year there were many departments that proposed no changes and no violation or complains with approved technology policy and associated technology. more information on this is included within the compiled reports as mentioned. there were a couple departments that indicated violation or

complains upon discovery both departments took immediate action and corrected the issue. the first was automated license plate readers for the municipal transportation agency. there was one data violation due to system observing a vehicle twice and count ing as a hit. the vendor assumed every hit was a violation. the department immediately corrected the issue. for security cameras for the department of public health, when the department conducted a audit and adjusted the a audit they adjusted procedures to match department policy for surveillance technology. and there were some reports with proposed changes. several departments proposed changes to surveillance technology policy. these included changes in authorized job titles, changes in technology such as units added replaced or ceased

operation or both changes in job title and technology. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for questions. >> any questions? no. i just had one. so, can you explain in a little more detail the automatic license plate readers? can you explain what that means? i'm not following what the violation was. >> i have the department here. they can answer questions relating to their reports. >> okay. >> if you can explain the meaning of the violation. >> good morning.

the automatic license plate reader, the violation was there was a miscommunication between the department and the vendor. whenever a vehicle passes by the parked vehicle, captures license plate, it is called a hit. it happens-when there is a hit there is start of the time and we start counting the duration of the parking. when the vehicle goes back again and hits that license plate one more time that is the delta we find out and say outside the window the car should be parking or not. the miscommunication between the department and the vendor was when they thought the hit-every time we capture we need to keep the data and then we clarify to the vendor. we don't need that. all we need is a delta and it is a violation. that is the only time we need it, so we corrected it in a

timelyen manner. >> mostly the readers are used to ticket drivers staying beyond their- >> [indiscernible] >> sorry, what? >> no ticket was issued. >> i'm still trying to understand, because we just got 300 more automatic license plate readers and i just trying to understand how they are used and what they are are used for? >> we have two type of license plate. one in the garages so when you enter the garage there are cameras at entry and exit. at the airport, once you enter the garage it captures license plate and once you exit the garage it takes the plate again and you find a delta between entry and exitime and charge for the duration. the benefit is before the alpr,

we had--they charge the full day price of the parking and if they are multiple days we keep a tally every day. that adds up by having that alpr we know the duration of the--this is in the garage. the parking control officers have cameras on their vehicles, so when they pass by the parked vehicle, they capture the license plate that vehicle, and then do a second round to check the delta and if there is a violation, the parker time is different then what it shows then we issue the ticket. >> thank you. thank you for the explanation. appreciate it. mr. clerk, can we open the item up for public comment? >> yes. members of the public who wish to speak on the item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there is a soft chime with 30 seconds left and louder chime

when your time expired. any members of the public who like to comment on this matter? there do not appear any speakers. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. happy to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. >> on the motion to recommend, vice chair walton, aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> motion passes. thank you. thank you so much. >> thank you so much. >> mr. clerk, please read item 2. >> yes, item 2 is ordinance waiving certain contracting requirements under chapter 6 and 21 of the administrative code and authorize the san francisco municipal transportation agency to procure, design construction operation maintenance and related service to implement and automatic speed enforcement system.

>> we have been waiting for this moment for quite some time, so very exseated you are here. >> good morning chair ronan, supervisor safai and supervisor walton. my name is shannon hack the #1350ed safety program manager at smta. i'm here today with a request for projbect legislation that allow us to speed up the implementation of this program. speed is the number one cause of serious and fatal collisions on san francisco streets and every mile per hour we can slow a vehicle, the chance of survival for anyone involved in the collision rises. speed cameras are a proven tool in cities across the country and around the world. they are effective reducing speeds, reducing spade related

collisions and fatalities. the graphic on the bottom of the slide shows the number of citations a sijsal camera in new york city produced. in four months there was 73 percent reduction of high end speeding on the streets and hundred ort cities have seen similar results, but up till now cameras were not authorized for use in california and that changed last year. the california legislature approved assembly bill 645 which became law january 1 this year. allows six california cities, three in northern california and three in southern california to participate in a 5 year pilot program to use speed cameras. we have been waiting for this opportunity over a decade and grateful to be included in this pilot. the law establishes how the pilots can be run so all 6 cities are playing by the same rules. for example, this pilot is focused on high end egregious

speeding so vehicles traveling 11 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. the speeding times and type of fines and warning periods are set for consistency between all six cities. now that we have the chance to deploy the life saving technology on san francisco streets we want to implement as soon as we can. p that is why we are here to ask for authorization that allows us to speed up the process and hire a single vendor for the 5 year pilot period to build and operate the system. with the authorization to use design build operate maintain or delivery method we can hire a single manager to manage to speed up instillation and allow to get the cameras operating as quickly as we can. this is the first step in getting this program up and

running. we need several different approvals shown in the blue boxes before we install the first camera. with today's authorization, we can release a rfp in may while we finalize the policy that guide the program. we will be back to the board of supervisors in june for consideration of the system use policy and system impact report to comply with administrative code 19b we just heard about, at that time we will also provide a update on potential camera locations and on the public education campaign that we are preparing in coordination with the cities of oakland and san jose also participating. we are on track to have cameras up and running early next year. that concludes the presentation and happy to take any questions. >> thank you. any questions colleagues? supervisor walton. >> thank you chair ronan. thauj thank you so much for the report. you mentioned you said, speed

up and i don't know was it the contracting process? trying to figure out what you were referring to? >> speed up the contracting process. under our typical process we would hire one vendor to design the system, a second vendor to construct that system, a third vendor to potentially operate and maintain the system while up and running, so in order to not have three separate bid processes we want to consolidate everything into one process so that we are able to get the contract up and running more quickly. >> got it. so we basically looking for a vendor who can do all this and not have to do three separate processes? >> that's right. >> thank you. >> okay. seeing no other comments i just wanted to thank you so much for the work. it could not come fast enough as far as i'm concerned and given the recent unspeakable

tragedy in our city, i just can't--i'm so thrilled we finally received this permission from sacramento and to see the results in new york city and see speed come down so far in such a short period of time, it is just a wonder why it has taken so long to get this up and running, so thank you for figuring out how to fast-track it. this legislation will literally save lives and i am really grateful. i'm not sure if i'm already a cosponsor, but if i'm not i love to be added as a cosponsor and with that, let me turn it over to supervisor safai. >> thank you. thanks for the presentation. appreciate the clarity. it would be good if you have-i only have the potential locations in district 11, but it would be good to have since

you have only 33 for the whole city, it is good to be provided with that information. can you talk about that a little bit? and before you do that, i just wanted to say, i know that you use data to identify these locations. i know you have done internal monitoring, but can you talk about how they were selected? how you are going to do your community outreach and engage with the community to insure folks know this is happening, why this is happening? i think one of the biggest things that often gets missed is community outreach process and the way to notify and educate people. obviously we want to educate before and have people understand, so would like to hear what kind of community meetings you plan to have and how your final design will be.

i'm very supportive of this and think it will have a significant impact given some of the things we experienced in the city, but i wanted to give you a chance to talkbus about the that. >> we started with the streets we were able to install the cameras on. the legislation specified exactly where we could install these cameras, so a street had to either be a safety corridor, a school zone, or a street with documented speed racing. we used the high injury network here in san francisco to guide a lot of our vision zero work. the high injury network is 12 percent of city streets that accounts for 68 percent of injuries and fatalities and that's what we chose to use. that is essential wlae the same thing as the safety corridor. we decided all our streets-all of our automated speed enforcement streets quoob would be on the high injury

network. we startsed overlay different data sources so started looking where speed related collisions were happening. we were looking at where documented speeding citations were being given out. we were looking at locations where more vulnerable san franciscans were so near schools, senior centers and parks. where people are walking and biking because in a speed related collision those are people more at risk. we started overlaying all this data together and it gave us 80 different locations across the city that met the overall criteria for automated speed enforcement and over the past few months we have been collecting detailed data at each location, all 80 locations. we typically put out these tubes in the roadway for 24-48

hour period and able to count and track the speed. that gibbs very good detailed information about where the worst speeding was happening and where particularly this egregious high end speeding was happening where people are going 11 miles an hour or more over the posted speed limit and that helped narrow the list. all districts in the itisy are represented. they are in a wide variety of different circumstances but many located outside schools or parks or senior centers or commercial corridors where people are walking and biking. we will present that on the locations the next time we come back to the board of supervisors as part of the system use policy andm impact report. >> it is good see a map of the high injury network. we talk about it a lot. it is it good to see the map

visual in the presentation and also where the collisions have taken place and where you identified the vulnerable locations. what is the cost of this program? >> we are still figuring that out because we have ntd started a contract yet and no similar contracts exist in the state of california. we are basing this off what we are seeing in other cities across the country. typically how vendors operate one of the programs they use a flat monthly rate per camera, so we would be paying a rate to the vendor per camera and that is inclusive of not only the roadside equipment but the processing, sending citations, mailing, things like that. we anticipate that the total program cost over the 5 year period will be less then $10 million so still trying to get a idea exactly what it will come in at. >> so, 5 year, $10 million?

and that comes out of the sfmta budget? >> that's right. we are using sfmta operating funds for that. >> and you intend to come back to the budget committee to ask for final approval on the contract since it is $10 million or more? >> it should be less then $10 million, so i think we were planning to go to sfmta board for approval. >> you are not coming back, so this is the only opportunity the board of supervisors has a chance to weigh in? >> there is a chance in a month and a half. that is the document that contains the policies that govern this program as well as the locations where automated speed enforcement cameras will be installed. >> the reason i ask the questions about the budget, it sounds like we don't have another to do that.

this is money out of the mta budget. there is plat monthly rate paid to the scrender, regardless citations are issued? >> that's correct. >> and the vendor has not been chosen. >> correct. >> and we are going to give them-and you are going through a competitive process? >> that's right. >> this is just waiving the ability to have three separate-you consolidate it into one? >> that's right. >> and we have not done this in san francisco before obviously. are there ideas where this has been done and what vendors have done a good job in terms of the track records? >> last year we ended up speaking with the pier cities in the united states and overseas about vendors they worked and with and learning how they structured the programs. that is particularly helpful as we have been setting up our

program. >> what cities were those? >> we talked to so many. some that stick out are washington dc, new york city, portland, seattle, albuquerque-i can pull together a list. >> that's a good just off the top of head. in those places, has the system been revenue neutral? haz has it cost the transportation system money? >> in all most every instance, the system generates revenue. our program is structured a little differently in that, the first two months of operation is a warning period where no fines are issued and then the first ticket in the lowest range, so for someone traveling between 11 miles a hour and 15 miles a hour, over the posted speed limit, that first ticket will be forgiven as well.

so, we are trying to assess where we are, but some of the provisions in ab645 mean we likely won't experience the same revenue generating effects. if we do, all that money by law would be going into traffic calming improvements across the city. >> oh. so, as part of the law, all the money has to go back into traffic calming? >> that's right. >> that's good. you are saying the first two tickets are waived for the first two months for anyone issued a ticket every? >> for the first two months a camera operating so turn it on ready to go and calibrated, the first 60 days it will issue notices but only warnings. and after that 60 day period, so essentially day 61 it starts issuing notices. >> okay. that's good. okay. thank you very much. >> thank you.

thanks for the presentation. mr. clerk, can we open the item up for public comment? >> members of the public who wish to speak should line up to speak at this time. each speaker is will be allowed two minutes. any members of the public who like to provide public comment? there does not appear to be any speakers. >> public comment is now closed. i would like to send the item to full board with positive recommendation. >> madam chair, can i be added as a cosponsor? >> supervisor walton. >> thank you chair ronan. i do just want to thank supervisor safai for bringing up the outreach components because these are conversations i did have with mta. one other concern that i do have, but obviously this is allowed boo ithe state and hopefully we'll see how this goes is the fact supervisor safai could be driving my car and i get the citation. >> sorry. >> that is something that

obviously is concerning, but i do think having also a 60 day period where folks will get the opportunity to know and understand, because the ultimate goal is to slow people down and so definitely supportive of this, but do want to make sure that we get the information out appropriately. >> great. supervisor safai. >> one last thing. i would like to see the perspective map for the whole city. i have the locations potentially identified in my district, but i like to see for the whole city once you have that. thank you. >> alright. i think i already made the motion, correct? >> on the motion to recommend, vice chair walton, aye. supervisor safai, aye. chair ronan, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> motion passes unanimously. thanks so much. mr. clerk, do we have other items on the agenda today?

>> that completes or agenda for today. >> the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

22nd 2024. regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. today's meeting is live cablecast on sf gov tv two. live streamed online at sf gov. tv.org forward slash ethics live for public comment. members of the public may attend in person or may participate by phone or the webex platform, as explained in our agenda document. mr. clerk, would you please explain how remote public comment will be handled? public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak for those attending in person. opportunities to speak during the public comment period will be made available here in room 416 city hall for those attending remotely. public comment period can also be provided via phone call by calling area code

(415) 655-0001. access code is 26643680498, followed by the pound symbol, and then press pound again to join as an attendee. one moment. we have a technical issue at the moment. i'm sure we're unmuted. and not getting any .

i'll continue speaking so that they can tell whether or not audio is functioning, again. so the number to call to make a remote public comment is 14156550001. the access code is. 26643680498. followed by the pound symbol, and then press pound again to rejoin an attendee. when your item of interest comes up, press asterisk three to raise your hand to be added to the public comment line. public comment is also available via the webex client application. they still

have issues with not being able to hear us. no problem. because you don't have any remote participants, right? so that'll be all right. so the air appears to be the webex, which does not preclude people from hearing us on sf gov tv. okay. so we can continue. yes that's correct. all right. so public comment is also available via the webex client application. use the webex link on the agenda to connect and press the raise hand button to be added to the public comment line with preference. given the technical difficulties today would be to call in at 14156550001 with 26643680498. that's the access code for

detailed instructions about how to interact with the telephone system or webex client, please refer to the public comment section of the agenda document for this meeting. public comment may also be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded, and will be included as part of the official meeting file. written comments should be sent to ethics commission at sf gov. org members of the public who attend commission meetings, including remote attendance, are also expected to behave responsibly and respectfully during public comment. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. persons who engage in name calling, shouting, interruptions or other distracting behavior may be excluded from participation. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call the meeting to order. clerk, will you please call? roll under item one. commissioners, please verbally indicate your presence by saying i. after your name is called chair i, commissioner

flores feng i commissioner salahi, i chair finley with three members present and accounted for. you have a quorum. thank you. with that, a call agenda item two general public comment. seeing no public commenters in the room, mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote public commenters? cheerful. if there are no remote public commenters. thank you. i

now call the consent calendar colleagues. as noted on the agenda, there will be no separate discussion on the items on the consent calendar. unless one of us or a member of the public requests that there be such a discussion. colleagues, do any of you wish to discuss the items on the consent calendar? i do not. seeing none, i move that we adopt. sorry. is there a motion to adopt the consent calendar? so moved. seconded mr. clerk, would you take roll, please? sorry. do i need to take public comment on the consent calendar? thank you, mr. clerk. would you check if there's any public comment on the consent calendar item?

we're checking chair. if in the . there are no public comments, though. the webex, application is still experiencing technical difficulty with muted audio from us. i don't mind waiting a few minutes if you think it is a problem that will be resolved imminently. let's take a five

minute or let's see what happens the next five minutes. thank you chair, for the . room for 16. clerk. yeah. i just noticed that after you started.

i think so. looks good. so. one second. i'm going to do it now. test one. two. three. three. two. one. test out . test one. 23321. test out .

great. appreciate your help. thank you. so webex is getting our audio. fine. is this when it goes out from webex is the problem. so he's calling somebody else to check on that aspect. from the livestream. oh, yeah. oh, yeah. okay. so they can't go out? not yet. but we're not the problem. yeah. the mechanic momentarily. come in to check the audio. come into the chat. they didn't. oh yeah. did somebody come when you were. yeah, yeah. so someone was in here. they were doing something to the .

different. test one two. 3321. test out.

great chair of the technical glitch has been resolved successfully. great. thank you, thank you. i think we were checking if there was public comment on the adopting the consent calendar. chair will check the remote queue. there are no public commenters in the remote queue. thank you. i believe i. got a motion and a second. could you take roll, please. a motion has been made and seconded to adopt the consent calendar for items three, four and five. i will now call the roll chair a commissioner flores fang, a

commissioner. salahi. i commissioner finn, live with three votes in the affirmative. affirmative the motion is passed unanimously. thank you. and i. i now call item number six. discussion and possible action regarding paul taylor matter. case number 20. hyphen 243. colleagues. this matter concerns an enforcement action brought by the staff enforcement division against paul taylor. we heard this on the merits at our last meeting on february 9th, 2024. we then started to deliberate, then, and today we will continue that deliberation. commissioner flores fang and i prepared a draft findings of fact and conclusions of law that we can discuss today. the staff submitted some proposed findings. mr. taylor forwarded an email exchange that he had with the city attorney's office. and those matters or those items will be posted on the public,

agenda items. so, colleagues, my hope today is that we'll discuss the matter. then at the end of today, vote on violations. and if we find violations, vote on penalties. i'm happy to kick us off, but i think first we can take public comment on this matter. see, folks have any comment. but i'm going to ask mr. deputy city attorney if there's something he'd like to say first. no. okay mistook your stare for a. so, colleagues, i'm happy to kick us off by sharing some observations that resonated with me in the time since we heard this last month, there were a couple of facts that as i was thinking about this and working through this, that really resonated with me. and they resonate in the sense that i do think that there are violations on all eight counts, but there are just some facts that really didn't crystallize until i was kind of going through this process, so i think

one and what i'm saying now is not the exclusion of anything that's in the proposed draft findings. they're just things that i thought were particularly, salient, you've got mr. taylor forwarding an article that refers to him as the head of the campaign, as the head of the campaign. and along with that, social media forwarding, he says, help us. he's soliciting money for that campaign. and i think he says, help us raise money. he's also circulating various ads for her campaign. then he sends ethics staff, some of her campaign materials. it's not clear why he did it. he didn't participate in our evidentiary hearing. but i think the clear inference is that he's doing this as part of her campaign to get clearance through the ethics commission. he's circulating that. then he introduces a donor who has capped out her contributions to the candidate, introduces her to a pac, introduce the candidate to the pac, and then at the same

time, he's arranging a billboard campaign for the actual candidate's campaign and for the pac using identical or substantially identical paperwork. sorry, billboards, campaign ads, and in effect and then he specifically tells the pac, this is an independent expenditure. i don't work for the campaign. after he circulated an article saying that he, in fact, in charge of the campaign, so those to me are really important facts, but i'm also aware that he's not a professional campaign consultant. i think the mayor's the lanzhou campaign was not run by professional campaign folks. it seems like it was kind of a home grown operation. doesn't mean it's not subject to the laws. it is. and i think that is going to go to our penalty discussion for me at least. but those are things i want to lay out. when we spoke last, i was not so sure about count, eight. that involves the providing

false information or sorry, providing a failure to provide information required to the ethics commission. i was uncomfortable with the fact that i don't know if that's county counsel. i think it's county eight, i wasn't comfortable with the fact that there had not been a motion to compel in court that there had been no process, but as i read the rules, that's not a requirement. and until a court says it is, i'm not sure that it's our place to say that that that that is a requirement. that's not if it's not explicitly stated in the code. so i think he did violate that provision. but i do think given that he's pro per, given that he did submit a response to the subpoena, albeit it was, i think five days after the deadline, he showed some he didn't ignore it. he provided a lot of material that was not necessarily responsive. and then he followed up twice. once he didn't get a response to his response from the enforcement staff. nothing that he provided, as far as i can tell, was actually. well, he certainly did not provide the

responsive documents, but i don't think we can say that he just ignored the subpoena. he didn't. he provided a lot in response, so i think there's a violation there. but when we discuss penalties, if we get to that step, i think those facts to me, militate in favor of a, a much smaller penalty for that count than what staff recommended. so i just i'm saying that to kind of kick us off. but i'd love to hear my colleagues thoughts and, yeah, take it from there, commissioner szilagyi. yeah. thank thank you, chair and vice chair flores for preparing the proposed findings of fact and for the staff for also preparing a version, i also appreciate the background on on count eight, i do want to talk about that one. a little bit as well as, one of the questions that came up at the last hearing regarding the showing of causation that's required with respect to his role in causing the failures by the asian

american freedom pac, as well as the zhao campaign committee to fail to disclose required information. at our last hearing, we had, talked about how it seemed that from the testimony of mr. tsuneishi, who confirmed that he was essentially misled into believing that there was no connection between mr. taylor and, and miss zhao or her campaign, that that is what triggered their failure to comply with the required disclosures and the caps on donations. and so there seemed to be a clear causation requirement there, the part that i'm still struggling with a little bit, although i don't i think i, i haven't made it a decision on that yet is how we deal with the fact that, the zhao campaign had an independent obligation to comply with these reporting requirements. and it seems that mr. taylor helped carry out the underlying

violative conduct. but it wasn't clear to me whether he also triggered the failure to disclose, by the campaign itself , there are a couple factors that i'm still mulling around in my mind, but on the one hand, we are in these proposal. we are finding that he was, in fact, an agent of the campaign. and i think that that is supported by the evidence under general agency principles, knowledge of an agent can be imputed to the campaign. i'm just not sure how that plays out. so we can presume the zhao campaign knew about what he was doing, to coordinating the payments, the unlawful payments by the pac. i guess with the next step from that be to the i guess. how do we get from that to the failure to report is also mr. taylor's responsibility. and how does that interact with the possibility of future, liability findings if it ever comes before the commission? as to the zhao campaign's committee to failure to comply with alleged failure to comply with certain reporting

requirements, so that's on on those two on those two issues. and to be clear, those go to counts three. five. three and five i think it is, pivoting back to count eight, i had your concern at the last hearing as well about whether there was a failure to comply. i think i have a slightly different view that gets me to the same result, which is i agree that if, there is, well, i agree that if there's no response, a timely response under the statute to the subpoena, including a timely objections, that there's a failure to comply there. but i do think that if there is if there are written objections served, that does shift the

burden to the commission or the city attorney to file some sort of enforcement action on the subpoena before a finding of failure to comply with this provision can be found. but looking at the statement of facts here, we were struggling a little bit to get the dates on the fly at the hearing, but it does show that he was served, on october 20th. and the subpoena that's in paragraph three of the proposed findings prepared by the chair and vice chair. he was served on october 20th. he was required to comply within 25 days or to respond within 25 days, which is november 14th. and he didn't serve anything that could possibly be construed as a response or objection until november 17th, so that is untimely by a few days. and i think that's sufficient to sustain a violation. i do think i agree with you, chair, that

the fact that he's pro se and the timing issue, is de minimis in terms of his, his, his, his, his failure to comply timely, probably goes to the severity of the penalty that's appropriate here. but normally when you don't respond, when you don't serve timely objections to a subpoena, you waive those objections unless there's some sort of excusable neglect. and there was, because we don't have his participation, we have no basis to find excusable neglect here, so just my general thoughts. great. thank you. i'm happy to commissioner flores fang. so the first point you raised about causation, i think these are really good questions. specifically how he caused the your campaign's, violations. the way i think about this, whether or not her campaign was also liable has no bearing on whether he was liable so they could all be liable for the same conduct and have no clue whether there

is an investigation there, whether that's that's beside the point. but the way i read the law, it basically someone else's violation doesn't obviate or vitiate his own liability. and i here i think it's pretty clear that his conduct caused it in the sense that but for his actions that contrition wouldn't have been made and the jackman would not have failed to report it, disclose it. so i'm comfortable with that, but i think the bottom line is that multiple parties can be liable for the same violation. so i think doing this in no way addresses whether or not other parties are also liable for that failure to report. yes. so. i agree with with the point that more than one party

can be liable for the same misconduct. i think conceptually i'm distinguishing between causing the campaign expenditure and contribution versus is causing the failure to report that underlying, contribution. and so i guess my question is where where how do we how do we explain the failure to report? how do we explain the failure to report being caused by him? to me, it just flows from the failure to from causing the excess contribution that a corollary, i guess a downstream consequences that then it was a failure to report it. but to me they're they're the same facts that lead to the same violations , and again, to me it's almost a but for causation. but for what he was doing, this wouldn't have been an issue. but again, it doesn't mean that the commission sorry that the campaign committee itself should not also have disclosed it or reported it. but i will say for even

though we're kind of jumping ahead, the way i think about that on the well, i'll save that for a penalty conversation if we get to that stage. but i think so. my hope is to extend we reach kind of consensus on just the charges. we can have one motion to adopt all the ones that we agreed on instead of voting on them one by one, and then we can separately talk about penalties after we cross that, but, commissioner, if you're not there on all the counts, then we should just take the ones where you are. there and then do the deal with the other ones separately. that's fine with me. do we need to take public comment before we, or should we make a motion to. i think we can take uncertain. yeah. mr. russell can correct me if i'm wrong. i think we can take public comment now and then entertain a motion after that, any public comment? i don't see any in the room. mr. clerk,

would you check if there's any public comment remotely? chair, if there is no remote public comment at this time. so i think , well, i don't want to make a needless motion, but the motion i would do is to move to find violations on counts one through eight. but before i do that, just if we're not, if you'd rather do it kind of one by one or carve off some separately, then we should do that. we could do one through eight, except three and five, if those are the ones that i think i, i think that makes more sense. okay so i moved to let me try the right language. i move, give me one second. i move that we approve the findings and conclusions of law. sorry, let me back up. i move to find that enforcement staff has proved, by

preponderance of evidence, that mr. taylor violated the charges in counts one, two, four, six, seven and eight. is there a second? seconded. mr. clerk, would you take a role, please, chair, before i take role, can you please have the commissioners? thank you. certify that they. sorry, i don't mean to cut you off, but i know where you're going. i apologize, i forgot. so under the rules, we have to certify us commissioners who are voting that we were present for the testimony and have reviewed the evidence. did i get that right? is that generally the, yes, that's correct. pursuant to our enforcement regulations. so i will certify that i heard the testimony, i reviewed the evidence, and commissioners, would you i'll ask you both individually, but do both certify that you heard the testimony and reviewed the evidence? commissioner flores

fang. perfect evidence. commissioner salahi, as do i. mr. clark, thank you for reminding me. you're welcome. chair a motion has been made, and seconded. i will now call the roll chair. finley i commissioner flores fang i commissioner salahi. i chair of the. with three votes in the affirmative. the motion has been passed unanimously. great. thank you. and i think even though i sense that if my if i move on the other two counts, it will not pass. but i think we should do it anyway. just to have a complete record, mr. city attorney, does that seem like a necessary step or a misguided step? that makes sense to me. okay, have on the record what happened. can i offer a comment on my vote when i vote or should i do it before, anytime?

absolutely. okay. floor's yours. you can do it now. or you can do it. okay. some other time. yeah, i'll do now. i think, i unfortunately, for the reasons i stated, i'm not prepared to find that there has been sufficient evidence presented that mr. taylor caused specifically, the failure to report by the zhao campaign committee, in counts three. and five, the reason for that, i do think there are sufficient evidence that he caused the underlying violation. but the reason for that is that i don't think we have enough evidence in the record to find that he was the campaign person responsible for filing those reports, or that he otherwise played a role in the failure to disclose the required information. the only basis that i could look at in the record

for that is that he played a role on behalf of the committee and running advertisements by the commission, it seems. so if we were to point to any evidence, it would be that. but to me, that feels flimsy, particularly given that it's a separate issue from the reporting requirements. so i'm not prepared to find a sustain a violation on those two counts. okay any other comments? sorry, i want to say one more thing, i, i understand the but for causation argument here, and i agree that but for causation is satisfied. but i don't think that's a sufficient basis in and of itself, if that were correct, then the donor herself, miss liu, is also responsible for the failure to report because. but for her contribution, there wouldn't be any underlying violations either. so i think there is an implicit proximate causation limitation there that we have to take into consideration. yeah, i think those are all good points, just

on that last point, though, i think the distinction i would make is that the donor didn't coordinate the contribution. mr. taylor did. but i think those are all great points that you raise, mr, deputy city attorney, we already took public comment on this matter generally. do we need to do another one since we're about to entertain another motion? no, you just need to take public comment once. okay? any action is taken. thank you, commissioner flores fang, any comments before i make a motion? okay. i move to find that enforcement staff proved by a preponderance of evidence that mr. taylor violated the charges alleged in counts three and five. is there a second? seconded mr. clerk, would you take a role, please? a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the role chair. i, commissioner flores fling i commissioner salahi. no chair in love with two votes in the affirmative and one vote in the

negative. the motion has not passed. thank you, mr. clerk. great. so now we should consider the appropriate penalty for these violations, and again, my hope is that we'll have a conversation about it and then move them all at the same time rather than doing it separately, and i'm happy to kind of share my thinking if it's helpful, but i'm also happy to defer to one of you to kick us off. so, to me, the two most significant violations are one and two. the ones that cause the actual excess contributions, because those are the ones that trigger everything that follows, for these two staff is seeking $1,700 for each violation, and i think those are appropriate for those two violations. for the balance of the violations, though, i'm not where staff is, because i feel like these violations, again, i'm taking

into account a couple of things. i'm taking into account the, seemingly i don't know what the word is, but these are campaigns that are relatively small, not run by big outfits. and also the expenditure at issue $10,000 coordination is significant. they got some a lot of billboards out of it, but it's also not as big as we see in other kind of independent expenditures. so it's a relatively i think the size of it is relevant. so for counts one and two, my recommendation is that we accept staff's recommendation of 1700 for each of those for count for my recommendation is 500 for that one. that's the count for count five. we don't have, sorry, i got something wrong. count three. we didn't find a violation on. so sorry. i'm going to start over. counts one and two. 700 each. 1700 each. count for 500. count six. 500. count seven. 500. that's the

failing to register. and for count eight, this is the one where staff sought the most $5,000. for the reasons that we've discussed regarding the subpoena, kind of the late submission by a few days is proper status. the fact that mr. taylor did respond just not as appropriate. but he didn't ignore it. he, i think, put a lot of effort into his responses, even though they were not responsive. so they're i'm thinking $100 penalty because i think it's important to point out until we're told otherwise, that there are penalties, appropriate here without court intervention. and here there was a failure to comply. but again, i find it a relatively not de minimis. but there was an effort to comply a few days late. so there i'm thinking $100 penalty is appropriate, i think that would get it. i'll have to do the math, but that would be the math. but that would be about a $5,000 combined penalties. but just to summarize, so counts one

and two $1,700 each count for $500 count six $500 count seven $500 count eight $100, my math is probably wrong, but we can figure that out once we entertain a motion, so having kicked that off, i'm happy to hear my colleagues thoughts. i'll start with the last one. count eight, if that's all right. of course. i would advocate for a higher penalty on that one, even keeping in consideration the untimely response and effort put into it, the reason is as follows. $100 is quite low. it's just a bit more than some parking tickets in san francisco. and i think that this kind of violation, which is even with the objections, i think, clearly intended to impede the department's investigation, i

don't you know, i, i can't look at the substance of the, of the objections and deciding whether or not, they were valid or invalid. that's what the enforcement actions are meant for, for subpoena enforcement. but they didn't appear to me to be good faith objections. they're pretty borderline frivolous, and i do think that we saw in the presentation from the commission staff that the inability to get a lot of documentation required us to rely a lot on inferential, reasoning from publicly posted materials or the one witness who did make himself available. mr. tsuneishi, so i would advocate for a higher penalty on the order of $1,000 for count eight. i think those are good points, and i could, but i'm i'd like to hear what my colleague says. no, go ahead. yeah, this was a tough

one for me, because he is pro se, but because i think that, while his response you know, wasn't necessarily, wasn't responsive to the subpoena, i do think it was sophisticated to some extent that he knew he was like responding to something. and this wasn't the first time, you know, the enforcement division had reached out. i think he was fully aware, and so i do think that more than, you know, a de minimis penalty is necessary here. i think, i just can't get, you know, $1,000 does seem pretty high, but i do i'm, i'm leaning more towards, i haven't come to an exact number, but more towards like 100, between 100 and 500, so you can come back to me. but those are my initial thoughts. i think those are all good points, commissioner szilagyi, if we

went to 500, would that address your. we're kind of compromising between the three of us, but i'd rather reach a compromise. then we have nothing. so i think i would be comfortable with that. i'm just reviewing the factors again, and i think it's while you're doing that, i'm going to read them into the record, because i think they are important to have. and i know we did this last time, but i think it's relevant. and these are in the proposed findings at paragraph f 54. yeah. thank you, pursuant to section nine d of the commission's enforcement regulations, when deciding on an order and penalties, the commission will consider all the relevant circumstances surrounding the case, including but not limited to, the severity of the violation, the presence or absence of any intention to conceal, deceive or mislead, and whether the violation was

willful. whether the violation was an isolated incident or part of a pattern, whether the respondent has a prior record of violations of law, the degree to which the respondent cooperated with the investigation and demonstrated a willingness to remedy any violations, and the respondent's ability to pay will be considered a mitigating factor. if the respondent provides documentation to the director of enforcement of such inability, which must include three years worth of income tax returns and six months worth of bank records or accounting statements at a minimum, of course, since mr. taylor did not engage with us during the hearing, we don't have anything responsive to that subsection. i just read, and i think commissioner, you raise a good point. when i was initially thinking about this, i was focused on the fact that he nearly complied. but for a few days. but as you point out, whether he accepted from that, it's pretty clear that he was not intending to actually be responsive to the subpoena in substance. and i think that's a

really good point that these factors get to. so i think a $500 penalty is appropriate. yeah, i agree, walking through those factors, one severity of the violation i the commission relies on the cooperation of individuals and entities that are under investigation to be able to carry out its mandate. so i would treat, unwillingness to participate in a process as being a pretty severe violation. when you look at the other ones, two, three and six, my inference is that it was a willful, non-cooperative non-cooperation by mr. taylor, we got the bare minimum, which were late served, so-called objections to jurisdiction, but unfounded ones. he had the opportunity to present testimony and respond to evidence presented here or to

submit his own evidence, and he didn't do so. so to me, that that demonstrates a pattern of unwillingness to cooperate. so if 500 is the only number we can reach consensus on, i would support that, but i would still push for a higher penalty. give me one second. i'm going to do some quick math. partly because, we don't want to send a message to other individuals that non cooperation, withholding of evidence, which may have explained some of the counts being not being sustained here, could, could benefit future individuals under investigation in. yeah. no i think that's a good point. and i think, it's good we're having this conversation, i think 1000 is still too steep for me, but i

think 750 is a good, is a good figure taking all that into consideration, any other comments on that item? if not, i'm going to move that we i'll say those figures into the record and then i'll move it all as one big item. all right. and then someone else, maybe staff can check my math while i'm doing it. so i move that based on the evidence submitted and the consideration of the penalty factors that i read in the record in relevant circumstances, that the appropriate penalty for count one is $1,700 for count two, $1,700 for count, four $500 for count, six $500 for count, seven $500 for count, eight $750. is there a second? i'll second

that. do we need. and just to confirm, we've already done public comments, so we don't need to do that again. right. okay. we're good. great. mr. clerk, would you take the roll, please? a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll chair. philip hi, commissioner flores feng. aye commissioner salahi, i, chair of the motion has passed unanimously. great, so i think in terms of the next steps in the in the staff's findings, sorry, in the commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law will plug in the vote totals and that will be the only, i think, change to the what was submitted, and then i'll work with staff to have this posted. but i think mr. deputy city attorney, that's all that remains for this matter. right correct. i think you should, adopt the findings as

amended by the decisions here today. and the commission may consider delegating to commissioner finley or one of you to make the conforming changes to the findings consistent with the decisions. thank you, i move to adopt the draft of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the commission, as amended by today's discussion and to delegate to me finalizing this consistent with our discussion today. seconded mr. clerk, would you take the role, please? and motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the role. chair of high commissioner flores feng, high commissioner salahi i chair finley with three votes in the affirmative. the motion is passed unanimously. thank you. i

now call item sorry. agenda item seven presentation on lobbyist program engagement and compliance division. thank you . good morning, commissioners. my name is john kim and i'm just going to wait until the presentation gets cast by i think it's tt. good morning. thank you for being here. nice to see you. so as i said, my name is john kim. i'm the senior program administrator with the engagement and compliance division. i administer the major developer permit consultant and lobbyist programs. i'm here to give you guys an informational

session about the san francisco, about san francisco's lobbyist program, and happy to take questions throughout. over this presentation, i'm going to cover the building blocks of our ordinance disclosure ordinance, including the lobbyist qualification threshold, a brief glossary of the foundational terms, including a few exceptions to contact lobbying. and i will also cover the disclosure obligations program statistics and provide an overview of. the guidance and informal advice and assistance our division provides, and hopefully leave plenty of time for questions. so an individual can qualify as a contact lobbyist in two ways. there are in-house lobbyists that qualify after making five contacts on behalf of their employer in a calendar month, and there are client based lobbyists who qualify after one contact. oh, we also have expenditure lobbyists that if they spend

$2,500 to urge, solicit others to communicate with officers of the city and county, will qualify as a contact or as an expenditure lobbyist and disclose how they spend their money to influence those types of contacts. so those foundational terms start with contact, which is defined very broadly. it means any communication oral or written voicemail, mail, email, text, including communications made through an agent or employee with the purpose of influencing local or legislative or administrative action. local, local, legislative and administrative action is also broadly defined and includes and includes, but is not limited to the drafting and enactment, defeat, approval, veto of motions, applications, ordinance , permits, contracts, and other governmental decisions made by officers of the city and county

officers. officers of the city and county are more specifically identified. they are any official that holds city elective office. members of most boards and commissions as the chief executive officer or directors of those boards and commissions, as well as the head of any city department, the comptroller, the city administrator, some county entities, or most county entities like the board of education, redevelopment agency, which is oci, i believe, and includes specific holders of unique positions such as the zoning administrator or the city engineer. and i just want to note that the line that separates advocacy from lobbying is connected to an economic consideration, which is defined as any payment fee reimbursement for expenses, gifts or anything of value. and it does exclude salaries, wages or benefits received by a federal, state or

local government. so public officials communicate in their official capacity would not qualify as lobbyists, and would not need to register and disclose that those communications that they're making on behalf of their department. additionally, individuals that have a 20% or greater ownership interest in a business are exempt from qualifying as a contact lobbyist if they're making communications on behalf of that business. and finally, there is an exception for representatives or officers and employees of 500 1c3 organizations and 500 1c4 organizations that file a 999 or 990 s, which i believe has a $50,000 threshold, and only if they're communicating on behalf of those nonprofits. so once an individual or entity qualifies as a lobbyist, they have two filing requirements a registration statement which is due within five days of qualification. and a monthly statement, which is due on the

15th of every month. the registration statement is where we would where we and the public would track who was involved in lobbying, the name and contact information for the contact lobbyist or the expenditure lobbyist must be disclosed and the clients that they will be representing, including their contact information, the period of representation for clients when they will be lobbying the specific departments that they want to identify and for expenditure lobbyists, payments of payments to influence also have to be or the decision makers of expenditure lobbyists have to be disclosed. the if depending on the type of organization the ceo, the cfo, someone any partners of an organization or the less option was yeah, anyone with ownership interest. and then monthly statements reveal details about who, what, when and how much has

been spent to attempt to influence via via the disclosure of campaign contributions, economic consideration, contact details including which clients interests are being lobbied, a description of what was attempted to be influenced, and then the date name and department of the officer contacted for expenditure. lobbyists, payments of $1,000 or more have to be itemized and disclosed when the payment was made, who it was paid to and what it was for. and i just wanted to give you a quick recap of our program statistics over the last four years. in any given year, we've had approximately 220 to 250 registered lobbyists and 180 to 210, active lobbyists in any given month, each calendar year, we have about 50 new lobbyists, 400 registration statements, 2300 monthly reports, and of

those monthly reports, 98% are timely filed, and the other two get filed within generally within a week. the an additional program statistics. the average economic consideration that's disclosed in any calendar year averages just around 12 million, we also have captured an average of 3600 reported contacts for in terms of expenditure lobbying, there's an average of about 300,000 payments to influence that have been disclosed and for campaign contributions due to the nature of what is on a ballot in any given year, i'm just going to give you a four year overview of the $700,000 that was disclosed, connected to lobbyists, 675,000 were for local ballot measures or recall

efforts, which is not prohibited by our ordinance. and the rest did go to the remaining 25,000 were connected to candidate controlled committees. and here's a few simple guides that provide a general overview of how to submit disclosures as a lobbyist and review data as a member of the public, these allow interested persons to get a brief overview of how they're supposed to comply with our laws , or how to review the disclosures that we provide online, this gives staff time to onboard new filers, provide informal advice, review all filings, and request amendments to attempt to make sure that the data we capture is as useful and accurate as possible as the department's filing officers, we want to make sure that filers and interested parties get the advice in a timely fashion. replicable and consistent and fair, so we have updated guides,

fact sheets, manuals provided, trainings, help any walk ins and field, a lot of cold calls to our office, and that is the brief presentation. mr. kim, thank you. i have a couple of questions. i think you covered this, but i want to drill down on it. what triggers the filing requirements is that once a certain expenditures met, the threshold. so the requirement to register is triggered. once a contact lobbyist makes five contacts on behalf of their employee and their employer, or one contact on behalf of a client. alternatively, if a lobbyist wants to register before they qualify out of an abundance of caution, the moment they qualify, they the moment they register the next monthly filing would be due. that's for contact lobbyists. what about for contact and expenditure

lobbyists. and so one issue that's always been elusive to me is when you have public officials or their staffs advocating for certain legislation or will probably legislation that's advocacy and not lobbying, because i still struggle with that concept. for example, you've got a state legislator showing up to advocate for a certain bill that's part of their job, and maybe we're getting too deep. but i'm just curious kind of where the line is between that and lobbying. you can speak to that. absolutely and so that would go back to the way that san francisco defines economic consideration, in 2015, there were some changes that were made to the lobbying ordinance, one which moved an explicit exemption from contacts for public officials that were making contacts on behalf or that were getting paid by government sources, from

qualifying as contact lobbyists. and we just moved to that to the definition of economic consideration, which exempts, any public official using their salaries for that type of advocacy. but thank you. but i assume, is it still tethered with what the contact is about? like just because you're a public official, you can't lobby on every thing without being a lobbyist, right? it doesn't still have to be kind of related to your official role. and that's where the difference of where the money is coming from matters. if i were to send a letter to a different board or commission saying that my personal opinion was that whatever it was, something i was not being paid by any other entity. that's advocacy. that's involvement in the democratic process. whether i was an elected official or member of the public or rank and file staff. right. the moment that payment is received or economic

consideration, which is the very broad definition which is a much broader definition, once that it becomes a involved, whether or not i'm a government employee, would change whether or not i would could qualify as a lobbyist. although proposition d did add some restrictions on their added a blanket restriction from public officials from lobbying. okay. yeah. thank you. and i know these are hard questions. i didn't warn you. so thank you for addressing that. anything from my colleagues. thank you for the presentation. yeah. thank you for being here. and i think we have to take public comment on this item even though there's no action item, seeing no one in the room. mr. clerk, would you see if we have any remote public commenters? chair finley, we have no remote public commenters. thank you. okay, i'll now call agenda item eight.

discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. let's start by taking public comment. seeing no one in the room. mr. clerk, would you check if there's anyone, remotely. sure. we're checking. and there are no public commenters in the queue. i have, not a specific thing to talk about, but kind of a mechanical way. the way i'd like to approach commission meetings in terms of the agenda items. i think we'd gotten into the habit of having enforcement actions, being on the consent calendar. from our perspective, they should always not be on the consent calendar unless we're crunched for time to be. enforcement actions are so important that they should all be considered individually. if we have a really busy calendar, we can consider that. but that's kind of my default approach. i'm curious if how you all think about that. my perspective is just that there's not a ton of them. they don't take that long, but they're really important because it's the core of us enforcing these laws. so i think they're worth of consideration. and frankly, a lot of the time when they've been on the consent

calendar, one of us takes it off anyways. so it ends up being that way. i feel like that should just be the default, and i think maybe these are more tips for staff. i'm curious to have your input as well. my colleagues, to extend that. we have items that we anticipate a lot of folks from the public. we should have that at the very, very first thing so that folks don't have to sit through unrelated items to be respectful of people's schedules and calendars. we should front load those items. and then to extend that, we have items that don't require action, that are informative. we should put those at the end of our calendar just so that to extend folks have time issues they can deal with commission action items first, and then we can kind of backload those. so those are kind of just three broad ideas for how to pursue this. but i'm curious, commissioner flores fang, commissioner sly, how you feel. and just to summarize, it would be enforcement actions should be considered individually, not consent, public items with kind of a lot of public comment. we should front load non action items. we should back load. those are just kind of my broad

ideas, mr. ford, i welcome you if you have a reaction to what i'm saying. and i'd also welcome, my colleagues. but please go ahead, mr. director. sure, for the record, patrick ford, executive director, we certainly try to already do the second part, we do try and put, you know, active matters where we're going to have parties, whether that's, you know, enforcement hearing or a waiver or anything like that. first, in the informational ones, later, we can certainly, you know, make sure that we're we're doing that. the first part about enforcement, i think you're specifically talking about steps. right. steps. right. for the record, stipulated settlement agreements with respondents, the enforcement regs specify that those go on the consent calendar unless they're pulled by a commissioner. and there's a process in the regs where we notify the commissioners immediately when a stip is signed. and then commissioners have five calendar days to request that the steps be pulled. so what i understand you saying is essentially that you would like to just preemptively

pull all of them and just have them all appear on the regular calendar. so i think my only request would be that we just not engage in that process. yes. not not send them to you and ask for you to pull them, but that we just understand that they're all effectively pulled until we're told otherwise. so we can just have a more streamlined process. we'll just put them all on the regular calendar. that works for me. as long as we still get them, because i like getting them, we'll still send them. certainly but we won't wait to hear from you. you don't need to tell us to put them on the regular calendar. yeah, that works for me. but i'm curious if commissioners have any issue or mr. deputy city attorney, if you see any problems with that approach. that approach seems fine to me. thanks commissioner sly, vice chair flores fang. yeah, i also see no issue with it. i do think that even when it is a stipulation, i think sometimes we have we're able to like commend the staff to coming to like i think it just opens discussion in a way that would be, productive. so i'm in favor of doing so. yeah. i think it's also probably better for staff

because frankly, there have been times where we didn't tell you that in advance, but and then at the meeting, someone requests to take it aside and then staff is having to respond to questions that maybe you all didn't anticipate. so i think this way everyone will know that they should be prepared to discuss it . oh, sorry. that's all. yeah. so just a follow up question. would you like the staff to give a presentation on each stipulation or just sit until the commission identifies which ones you'd like to have discussion of, and then come up and only speak on those? that's a great question. let me table that and think about it. but i think that's a good question. can you can you what do you mean by presentation. like a like a summary of. yeah. if you look at the meetings that the fppc and i think in the past sometimes we've done this where for every step the staff gets up and presents a summary of the facts and a summary of the violations that were agreed to. i think in the past, the commission decided , let's not do that. if they're on consent, we don't need to have that. i think a perfunctory

introduction is appropriate. you know, we recommend that staff, that the commissioners accept the recommendation that we blah, blah, blah, but you don't need to go a full recitation of the facts and the conclusions, and then we can dig in as appropriate. but it's really signposting, basically announcing the agenda item as what staff would be doing okay, but not get into the substance of the step right? unless someone asks for. that's got it. we read them all before. before coming. so that works for us. perfect. great all right. any other thoughts on future agenda items? vice chair, commissioner. all right. great. i think that gets us to public comment. do we take public comment on this? no i thought we did, but we do. we did. we already know. we have not did, but not for item eight. all right, mr. clerk, would you check? i actually do have one item that i wanted to. okay, hold that please, i mean, i think i don't know if we mentioned this at the last meeting, but, and maybe not because of the election, but

we're really excited about prop d, and i know that there's a lot there are a lot of action items that come from that, including additional training, for our city officials and the departments. and i was just i think that at the next meeting, if we could get an update about how that's going, you know, how the trainings are being set up or what the plans are that would be great. and i know that we've discussed it, but i think it would just be good to have everyone kind of updated on on our progress. and next steps given, the success of property. glad to do that. absolutely pardon me. great. mr. clerk, would you see if there are public commenters on the remote system, there are not. under item nine, we provide an additional opportunity for general public comment. seeing no one in the room. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any callers? if we are checking to see if there are remote commenters for item nine, and there are not, thank you. hearing no further callers, this opportunity for additional

public comment is closed. i call agenda item ten. adjournment thank you. this concludes the march 22nd meeting. thanks everyone >> alright.

everybody. i'm san francisco mayor london breed. welcome to the innersunset! a wonderful community, a place where you can shop and dine and hang out and have a good time and a place that's extremely close to golden gate park and the botanical gardens. this is a special community. when i was supervisor for district 5, i represented this community. now, this is a part of district 7, so lucky you, visor myrna melgar, who is a biker, by the way. so, why are we here? for the much anticipated automatic license plate readers that are going to be installed in a hundred locations around the city with 400 cameras in order to help us continue the great work of addressing public safety in san francisco. in fact, what we have seen

recent months and all of 2023 has been a significant decline in crime in san francisco. in fact, 2023 was the lowest crime rate we have seen in 10 years, not including 2020 during our global pandemic where we had to shut the entire city down, so we should be proud of the work we've done. [applause] and that trend is still happening this year. we have 32 percent reduction in property crime and 16 percent reduction in overall violent crime and that has a lot to do with the extraordinary work of so many of our public safety officials that are joining us here today, including police chief bill scott and district attorney brooke jenkins.

we appreciate all the amazing work they are doing. [applause] but just because it seems like things are getting better and the numbers are helping to tell that story doesn't mean we let up. we have to do everything we can to insure safety. so, when we are talking about car break-ins, and car theft, when we where talking about side-shows and other issues that happened in our city, automated license plate readers can play a invaluable role in helping us to track some of the perpetrators of these crimes, and hold them accountable. this does not include speed cameras, it does not include facial recognition technology, but it will be useful for amber alerts as well as sometimes some of our elderly people who may have dementia or alzheimer's who might end up

being missing. it will help us find people as well. it is extraordinary tool and we are really grateful for that. but let me say, because the voters pazed promsition a, i'm excited what that will mean for helping with surveillance technology and drone technology. well, you know how the police in los angeles i think they used to use helicopters instead will be using drone technology to help us combat a lot of issues as well. so, there is so much here and so much to be excited about, and we are well on our way to continuing the efforts that we need to do to address public safety in san francisco and i'm proud of this and excited about what this means for the future of public safety in our city. and to talk a little more about the police role in helping us address crime and more importantly, how these

automated license plate readers will be useful is our police chief bill scott. [applause] >> good morning and thank you mayor breed. i'll start with this, this is going to be a game-changer and want to thank mayor breed for her leadership and so many others who helped us get to this point. we got this grant and approval in october and 6 months later to introduce the cameras are up and not only up, they are up and operable today. that is an amazing accomplishment. [applause] so, today begins a new chapter for san francisco in terms of our ability to fight crime. the city and county of san francisco is the tech capital of the world and now our officers have the technology that they need to better address the crime challenge in the itisy city and this is a very very exciting thing.

over the next three months, these automated license plate readers go up throughout the city as mayor breed described. 400 cameras in hundred different locations, giving our officers incredible tools to catch criminals. this is all possible because the department secured a $15.3 million organized retail theft grant, but this grant does not limit us just to organized retail theft, because this will help us address all crimes. homicides, robbery, assault, car break in. this helps address all crimes, and thanks to mayor breed, this was a expedited process. a lot of people had their hands in this. i was to give a special shout outd to ryan cowl for all his work putting this together. assistant chief david lazar and julia, the mayor staff.

this was a team effort so let me end by saying a couple things. this city is a family and it takes multiple departments to address the challenges in the city. the san francisco public utility commission, sfmta, the sheriff who you will hear from shortly and district attorney, we are all a team, and we are going to work as a team to address challenges to continue to drive crime down and now we have a very very powerful set of tools to help do just that. think about this, over 70 percent of crime involve vehicles. over 70 percent of crime involve vehicles. we have not had the ability starting today we have the ability to do which is track the vehicles, give officers advantage so we, we can catch people if they commit crimes in the city. we hope this will be a deterrent because san francisco

a great city. we don't want people coming into our city committing crimes and people in our city commits crimes and if we do, we want to make sure we give our district attorney and her team the evidence they need to success fell prosecute these cases and we will be able to do that with this technology. crime has been dropping steadily this year and with this technology and our use of it, we think that tend will continue and think it will be expotential. i want to end by saying this, again, thank you mayor breed, thank you da jinkerns and thank you to the public. with your support it is morale booster for our department and we get asked how to increase staffing shortage? meepal want to work with a department that has momentum and supported and believe me, our officers feel that support so thank you for everything you are doing to the public and again, thank you mayor breed for your leadership. with that, now we'll hear from

our district attorney, brooke jenkins. [applause] >> thank you chief scott and thank you mayor breed. today is a great day in san francisco. it is exciting day in san francisco, because as law enforcement agencies we are being given additional tools to make sure that we can keep san francisco safe. the truth of the matter we are far behind the time to use technology to aid law enforcement velgz in the city and there have been road blocks for years that prevented the san francisco police department and other law enforcement agencies from able to have the resources necessary to solve cases and prosecute those quhoo commit crime in the sit a eand this is a sign today that those days are over. we are moving forward as a city to make sure that people who commit crime in not only are caught, but when they are prosecuted they are convicted. as the district attorney i really want to stress the

importance of the amount of evidence that we need in 2024 to prove that someone is guilty of a crime. our jurors in san francisco want to be assured that if they are voting guilty in a case that they are convicting the appropriate person who is cullpable for the conduct and a part of presenting adequate evidence is making sure we have all of the technological resources to prove to them not only the conduct committed, but that we have the charge the appropriate person who committed that conduct. these cameras are going to assist in aid in our ability in the court room to do just that, so again, i'm very thankful to not only the state for providing the resources through the organize said retail theft grant to purchase the cameras but thankful to the city of san francisco to make sure this is something that happened today because at the end of the day the way we are going to solve

the most pressing public safety issues in san francisco is not just through arrest, it is through making sure people are held accountable after that arrest in the courtroom. they have consequence and the goal is that as that word spreads, people will understand that they cannot do that here. that functions as a deterrent to those thinking about coming here to rob our most vulnerable and break into our cars, commit theft in the stors because now they understand we have the tools to catch them and to prosecute them. so again, i stand with everybody's up here smiling because this moves our city forward to make sure we restore a sense of safety here. at this time, i'm going to turn it over to our sheriff, paul miyamoto. [applause] >> good morning everyone. to add to what has been said, by all the partners in public safety, one of the best things

to happen here is not just the partnership and enhancement sof that for our local authorities and also the fact we can share information at the state level with our regional partners. we are not an island in san francisco and connected to other counties and as people commit crimes and move on our corridors, the traffic corridors they move to different places. we always had a problem with people coming here to commit crimes as mentioned by the chief. one of these tools will help us and bridge the other regional assets to really track and hold people ap countable as they do types of crimes that bridge different counties. one other thing very beneficial for, as you can see and as we talk about the camera jz look up and see them, we are not going to have officers on the street every day to slow the traffic down, to have people obey traffic laws, this is a deturnlts.

it is not just the work we do but having on the street in the public and have people be safe. my kids were on the corner sells things for the high school fund razor and have traffic and have people see things like this to know the information we share with the public at press conferences like this to know we are keeping people safe is the most important thing and we can't do that without the support of the community but the people that help with the budget and money and process. as the mayor mentioned, this whole system has been streamlined for us to get to this point. some people that assisted in that have been our district supervisors and at this time i like to introduce district supervisor myrna melgar. [applause] >> thank you sheriff. i'll be brief. i wanted to make a couple points. this is wonderful use of technology and a appropriate use of technology and i want to

thank the mayor so much for just being a leader in this. all of san francisco, right here in silicon valley could use this kind of initiative. it is cost effective and it allows us to focus our staff, wonderful police department on what they do best, strategy and able to analyze when a wrong has been committed, rather then you know, having folks be there all the time watching when wrongs are not committed. i'm grateful for that. but the second thing i wanted to say, i'm grateful we are paying special attention to this corridor in this corner. as you can see, it is really busy. we have had our struggles with retail theft on this corridor and it is super important. we have ucsf parnassus behind us and golden gate park, so people come here, get off our trains and go to golden gate

park where the county fairgrounds is in this corner is usually very very busy. there have been hit and runs and all kinds of things that having a camera here would be really really helpful in making supporting safety and supporting the community feeling safe. so, i'm very grateful for the attention. i'm so happy we are moving forward with this kind of technology, and grateful for the partnership of the merchants and folks in the community who support safety in the community. it is my pleasure to introduce somebody who has been a partner and continues to do the work every day. our chair of our merchant association, susanna wise. >> thank you supervisor. as a member of the small business community, i am all too familiar safety and security challenges whether they are retail crimes, smash

and grabs or broken windows plague our businesses trying to stay afloat. i want to express gratitute to the sfpd and all city partners represented here today for hard work, collaboration and dedication keeping our community safe and helping our community, commercial corridors thrive. and finally, i like to thank mayor breed for her vision and her commitment to all of us who live, work and care about san francisco for implementing innovative solutions such as these cameras that can have lasting benefits for our community for years to come. and, now i like to introduce josh thomas the senior vice president of policy and communications from lock safety. [applause] >> thank you. my name is josh thomas. i work for safety and i are want to say quickly that, as a company we build hardware and

write software providing the evidence to solve crime. what you heard today is a incredible testament to this city moving all in the same direction. you heard this from the mayor who i want to give thank you to the mayor and her administration. [applause] it is easy for people talk about wanting to do things and difficult to execute those things and you see the mayor deliver on her promise time and again so thank you mayor for continuing to do that frathe city. i'm from the bay area, i was born here. i met my spouse in the city. my first apartment was a couple blocks away. i really love this city and i love seeing everybody working together for the purposes of trying to keep it safe and doing it in a way that is respectful of the values of this city. you heard from supervisor melgar. it is important we have good policy to keep us in line and make sure this technology is used safely and effectively and that's what we'll do. weep polk give chief scott and the team the tools they need to

solve more crime and bring crime rates down. thank you for the opportunity, thank you for welcoming us in san francisco and let's build a safer community together. thanks everybody. [applause] >> thank you so much josh and i also like to acknowledge and welcome supervisor joel engardio and thank him for his work and advocacy on the issue as well. well, with that, make sure you guys go eat in this neighborhood at the various restaurants and just take in the sites. ambience is a favorite store. if you need a gift for a lady, or a gentleman, you never know, it is a great place. thank you all so much for coming. [applause]

>> [music] you are watching golden gate inventions with michael. this is episode exploring the excelsior. >> hi i'm michael you are watching golden gate inventions highlighting urban out doors we are in the excelsior. pickleball. let's play pickleball! pickleball is an incredited low

popular sport growing nationwide. pickleball combines tennis, bad mitton and ping pong. playod a bad mitton sized court with paddle and i plasticic ball. starting out is easy. you can pick up paddle and balls for 20 buck and it is suitable for everyone in all skill levels you see here. the gim is played by 2 or 4 players. the ball must be served diagnoty and other rules theory easy to pick up. the game ends when i player or team reaches a set score 11 or 21 point bunkham win bright 2 pickleball courts are available across the city some are and others require booking ahead and a fee. information about the courts found at sf recpark. org if you

are interested in playing. now i know why people are playing pickleball. it is so much fun you play all ages. all skill levels and pop on a court and you are red to g. a lot of fun i'm glad i did it. all right. let's go! time for a hike! there is i ton of hike nothing excelsior. 312 acres mc clarin the second largest p in san francisco. there are 7 miles of tris including the there was fer's way this spreads over foresxeft field and prosecute voids hill side views of the city. and well is a meditative quiet place in mc clarin p you will siendz labyrinth made of rock:now we are at glen eagle

golf course special try out disk golf >> now disk golf! so disk golf is like traditional golf but with noticing disks. credit as the sport's pioneer establishing the disk ballsorption and the first standardized target the disk ball hole. the game involves throwing from key areas toward i metal basket. players use different disks for long distances driver, immediateerate. mid range and precise shot, putters. players begin at the t area. throw disks toward the basket and prosecute seed down the fare way. player with the lowest number of throws the end wins the game.

disk golf at glen eagle cost 14 dollars if you pay at the clubhouse. there is an 18 hole course this is free. du see that shot? i won! am i was not very good now i have a huge respect for disk ball player its is difficult but fun. thank you for joining me in the excelsior this is goldenate adventures.

>> good afternoon everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to march 25, 2024 regular meeting of the land use transportation committee of the san francisco board of surprisers. i'm supervisor melgar joined by supervisor president aaron peskin and vice president dean preston. the committee clerk today is mr. john carroll and i like to

kn