good morning. everyone. welcome to the may 16, 2019

meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor ronen, chair of the committee. coming shortly is supervisor walton and seated to my left is guard gordon mar. our clerk is victor young. and i'd like to thank sfgovtv for this meeting. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speakers cards should be submitted to the clerk. item acted upon will appear on the may 14 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i have one announcement. i'm going to be recessing this meeting at 11 a.m. if it is not over yet because we will have the swearing in of our new fire chief this morning.

and i'm also going to be taking items, 2, 3 and 4 out of order, since we expect those items to be short. we're joined by supervisor aaron peskin. mr. clerk, please read times 2, 3, 4. >> motion confirming and rejecting the reappointment of mara rosales to the successor agency commission for a four-year term ending november 3, 2020. item 3 is approving the appointment of bivett brackett to the agency commission. item number 4 is a motion approving, the mayor's poument of desi danganan to the successor agency commission for a four-year term ending november 3, 2020. >> supervisor ronen: just a note that i will be making a motion to continue item 3 to the may

20th meeting since bivett brackett could not be here today. but first we'll hear from commissioner rosales. thank you for being here today. >> thank you. you have my resume. you have a full house, i'll be brief. thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself. i am a native san franciscan, born and raised in the mission. and grew up in the oceanview area. we moved a lot around as a family. went to school, of course, here in the city. went to lowell high school, san francisco state, u.c. hasting. i have my law practice in the mission. my profession is attorney and consultant, but i've been practicing for about 30 years. and 20 of it as a former deputy city attorney. it's through that experience

that i think i bring to bear lots of experience for this commission. i've been a member of this commission since its inception in late 2012. and you have my resume, and you have my e-mail to each of you, but i wanted to highlight my work on the commission and my interests in continuing to work on the commission. the highlights are i learned a lot about affordable housing, so i think i've got specialized expertise. i'm still learning, but i try to spearhead improving access to affordable housing, particularly for the folks displaced in the western addition. i wrote the local business ordinance of the minority business ordinance for the city, so i levy that experience and maximize those opportunities for small businesses, minority and women businesses in san francisco. also, on the workforce side,

last time i was before this committee, supervisor ov lows impressed upon me to think about workforce development. i think there is work to be done there. last, but not least, i consider myself a neighborhood advocate. i've been a community member in the mission, the greater san francisco, my entire adult life, so i try to advocate for neighborhood amenities, neighborhood self-determination basically. so we work closely with all the communities we serve. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. i know you have a full house. >> supervisor ronen: i just want to say i'm very excited about your reappointment to this commission. for those who don't know mara rosal rosales, she is incredibly expected member for the mission and the bernal heights community.

someone members of the community go to for advice on self-determination for their neighborhood. and i wanted to express my gratitude to you for accepting the reappointment and this responsibility for our city. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: any questions for ms. rosales? no? >> thank you so much. >> supervisor ronen: thank you for being here. now we'll hear from desi danganan. >> it's great honor to be an appointment for ocii. as my rule in the chair of -- role as chair of economic development, this is an interesting turn. our community has been affected by the previous agency redevelopment, not once but twice, through economic displacement through urban

renewal. i really see my role in trying to make sure this agency doesn't repeat the wrongs of the past. but i'm more than just a housing advocate and activist. i'm also very conscious about the fact that we have a great housing crisis here in san francisco. i've been a resident for over 20 years. i own several small businesses in our community. and i find it my role to bridge that gap between those who are pro-development and those against development, because i think there is a middle ground we can find. as long as we always align with our values as san franciscans. >> supervisor ronen: wonderful. thank you so much. another fabulous appointment. thank you for being willing to take on this challenge. i know that soma filipino is very supportive of your

appointment. thank you for all your work. any questions? nope? thank you so much. thank you for being here. i will now open up items 2, 3, 4, to public comment. if any member would like to speak, now is the time. you'll have two minutes. okay. come on up. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is dez, i'm a resident of district 9. i'm the former president of the asian pacific alliance and co-chair of the filipino democratic in san francisco. i can a community and labor leader. i know desi. he can give us voice in our

community, not just district 6, but the entire community to protect housing, to organize labor, and so appointing desi to the commission is a big step moving forward because he represents the next generation in our community to be a good leader to serve the public in general. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. first, i would like to make a motion to continue item 3 for two weeks to the may 20, 2019 meeting. without objection, that motion passes. anybody want to make a motion for items 2 and 4? >> just real quick question. these are separate motions, right? >> yes, they are. >> so i want to make a motion to

confirm the reappointment of mara rosales and move that forward with a positive recommendation. >> supervisor ronen: without objection -- >> that will be amended to delete the word rejected and forward it with recommendations. >> supervisor ronen: correct. thank you. >> then item 4, motion to approve the mayor's point of desi danganan. >> supervisor ronen: without objection, that motion passes. thank you so much. item number 1 is ordinance requiring the city to receive information from non-city owned surveillance technology, submit

a board of supervisors approved surveillance technology policy based on a policy developed by the committee on information technology and a surveillance impact report to the board in connection with any request to appropriate funds for the purchase of such technology. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair ronen, supervisors mar and walton. thank you for your hearing this now for its third time. this is legislation that i originally introduced in january and has been refined a number of times and they're actually based on input from the public and number of departments. a few more amendments that are before you today, which i will describe. i want to thank folks for working with my office to further refine this. let me start by saying i think we like to put names on our

pieces of legislation. they're cute, catchy. and if i had this to do over again, i would have actually named it slightly differently, because while we call it the stop secret surveillance law, that is a little bit of a misnomer, because this is really about public oversight of surveillance technology. it does not actually stop surveillance technology, with one exception, by is facial recognition software, but we're trying to do -- i want to thank the american civil liberties union who has been very helpful to my office and staff. what we're trying to do is bring safeguards and community input and board of supervisors and departmental oversight into a category of technology that historically has often been used in abusive ways against marginalized communities.

and this is really about giving policymakers the information that they need to safeguard these important technologies from abuse. not from their use, but their abuse. i think if we have this type of oversight and the users of the technology know they have to be held to account, it will actually make our communities more safe, not less safe. this is really a forward thinking policy. i would like to say we're the first to do it, we're not. santa clara has done this for some time. actually introduced this as statewide legislation to require every county in the state to do it. unfortunately, law enforcement has an outsized impact in

sacramento and that legislation has yet to become law. i hope a decade from now, the city and county looks back and is grateful that this policy was set into motion. i could regal you with some of the things that have happened in the city, in the late 60s, early 70s, again with surveillance of act up during the aids crisis, with surveillance of the black lives matter movement. this is not a new thing. this ordinance has actually been subject to more committee hearings than most pieces of legislation i've passed in the almost 20 years i've been off and on the board. which is fitting because this is an ordinance about transparency. so i think that is a good thing. i want to underscore there is nothing in the legislation, there is actually a clarification here that folks from an organization have been e-mailing us all about.

there is nothing in this legislation that prevents law enforcement from receiving or let me underscore, using, information brought to it by third parties. so if you're the homeowner or the tenant who has video camera or even facial recognition software, and you want to go and bring that to the police department as a tip, the police department can use that. so i want to be very clear that is in here. and further clarified by these amendments. and then let me say that, look, this is a new frontier. and to the extent that it needs amendments in the future, we are here as this legislation evolves over time to make amendments. finally i want to thank the department and staff for their in valvalu valuvalue be input -.

and i want to thank the city planning for running everything through coit. it reduces the administrative burden to departments. and then i want to thank my cosponsors president yee, chair ronen, supervisors walton and haney. and again, i want to express my appreciation to the aclu for their technical assistance. last but not least, my staff, lee, who has been working this since late last year. and then with that, madame chair, let me just address the amendments. all of which are non-substantive. so they do not require another continuance. i know that you are getting tired of this being on your

calendar. and so with that, on page 1, at line 8 -- page 8, line 12, you will see that the words, manufacturer and model numbers and/or, have been stricken. and that is based on comments from departments that they sometimes replace a technology with a like technology from a different manufacturer. but that information is still be captured in the annual report, which will give us a look back and we'll be able to see that information. the second amendment is at page 12, lines 6-11. which adds the very important words, access to or use by a city department, and that is what i referenced earlier in my opening comments, that clarifies

that the city can receive and act -- and use that information. and then amendment 3, page 12, lines 12-16, adds language, nothing in this chapter 19-b shall restrict... information from surveillance technology. that was a request from the city attorney's office. amendment 4, lines 13 -- page 13, lines 24 and onto page 14, you'll see a department may submit a surveillance technology policy ordinance that includes multiple separate policies for each technology possessed or used before the effective date

and that was to reduce administrative burden. amendment 5, page 16, is language that the puc requested which basically says that a technology can be used in an xi gent circumstance for the duration of the circumstance. so if it's drone technology for a fire in the uplands and they have to acquire something, that is what that language is for. and then finally, on amendments -- the last amendment at page 18. lines 5-10. was language suggested by the controller to give the controller more flexibility in how the controller reviews the surveillance technology policy. so that is the sum and substance of the amendments that i have before you.

>> supervisor ronen: fantastic. we can take those amendments after public comment. is there any comment before i open this up for public comment? no. so i will just remind everyone that if we aren't able to get through public comment before 11:00, that i'm going to recess the meeting so we can attend the swearing in of our new fire chief. and then right after that swearing in, we'll return to finish the hearing. with that, i will open up the matter for public comment. each member of the public will have two minutes to speak and i'm going to call some of the first names.

[reading of names] i'll call more names after we hear. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is mack, i'm an attorney at the aclu of northern california. i spoke to you a few weeks ago when this was first heard. thank you for your leadership in considering this ordinance. it is one that the brings surveillance auto of the shadows and ensures that san francisco lives up to its sanctuary promise. our community groups and civil rights organizations urge you to consider the ordinance. they should have a voice in decisions about whether to allow drones to fly over communities, track drivers, or to have algorithms tracking online conversations. this streamlines a process with

existing city expertise. gives the board, coit decisions about public safety. as supervisor peskin said, the law -- the ordinance explicitly allows community groups to provide tips to law enforcement and city departments. and in that way preserves the status quo, that the community can provide tips. we know this is a model that work. six other bay area communities have passed legislation like that. there is a pressing need to act. the harms of unchecked surveillance are very real and they often impact immigrant and communities of color disproportionately. the aclu said that isis is trying to access surveillance systems. this will provide the tools to prevent that. it also reject flawed facial recognition, which even if

accurate would change how we exist in public spaces and suppress san francisco's culture of civic engagement. so san francisco sits at the center of tech innovation. i do and the aclu wants to make clear that [bell ringing] >> time has expired. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisor. my name is pius lee. i'm here today to oppose the ordinance because it's not necessary and it creates new restrictions for the police to do their jobs. when i walk into city hall, i have to go through -- visit city hall. the only department well

requires surveillance technology is the police department. we have to provide police officers with camera and to install cameras in the police car to protect public safety. and we have to encourage the public owner to install cameras in private buildings. if this law is passed, police officers may not be able to wear body camera and camera in police car. if the board of supervisors passes this, you can change it any time. and currently, the owner can report to the police department -- [bell ringing] --

any person to -- without paying the -- and police can come into and identify who took away the merchandise. so if you pass the law, there will be no way the police can do their good job, okay? i want you to really consider, otherwise you will encourage more people -- [bell ringing] >> i'm a resident of chinatown. for the last few years, i'm a member of the central police station, the police officers advisory to the central station. so i have, contact with policemen, law enforcement. since the inception of the policemen wearing the body

cameras, it's really doing a good job for everybody. you know, before the camera, the police say this, the defendant say this and then the jury and judge had to decide who is saying what. now we have the camera to tell the whole story. and i hope that you don't change that. and i just heard president peskin -- supervisor, saying that the ordinance will not change the police department's law enforcement. that is very good. and there are chinatown merchants with shoplifting and all these shops in chinatown, our supervisor knows that, he encourages us to put out the cameras. and the merchant and the policemen are working together.

i hope you will not change that. all these things, it's good for the police department. i hope your committee -- [bell ringing] -- to the police commission, so they will really go through this step-by-step, see what recommendation they make to this committee for this enforcement. send it to the police commission to -- so they can work on it. i hope you do that before you approve of it. thank you so much. >> good morning. i'm marlene, a longtime volunteer community activist. like many concerned residents here, i strongly oppose this legislation. 30 years ago, crime was so rampant and targeted at the non-english speaking victims,

that residents pleaded with me to start my safety work. in those early years, crimes could not be reported because of the lack of electronic devices and police contact was in english only. it has always been a concern. our residents consistently requested more surveillance cameras to be strategically placed in high crime corridors. on january 8, this year, our residents were shocked to learn of the brutal beating of mr. wong, but thanks to the work, they were able to arrest the perpetrator given the surveillance cameras. given that the number of victims is high, the city has not seen the input in such important

legislation. my reasons for opposing this legislation, it will compromise public safety and create more barriers for law enforcement to carry out their duties. body cameras can bring greater transparency, especially when they have gone through rigorous community process. to be fair and inclusive, this proposal needs the input of all diverse leaders in san francisco. it needs to give authority to the police commission and others to improve the policies. nearby cities take advantage of those technologies to reduce crime, so why is san francisco attempting to ban them? thank you for your patience. i will stay for the translation of other speakers. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. next speaker. >> good morning. >> translator: this is mr. su.

and he is introducing himself. he lives in vicitation valley. he is 82 years old. my main concern has to do with public safety. public safety has always been a great concern for the community, not only for him, but for many people as well.

>> translator: he is opposing it, especially when he was not informed of it and most people who don't have access to computers, e-mails, they didn't know anything about this legislation. of course, he found out through me. most people have heard of the brutal beating of mr. wong, so if it had not been for the use of surveillance cameras, the perpetrator would never have been found.

so mr. su is concerned, but every time he mentions public safety, especially about this stopping of the surveillance cameras, affecting police work, everybody got their ears perked up and everybody is interested, so he's here to represent many who are not here today.

okay, so he's asking supervisor walton to find ways to better inform the residents, especially on policies like this. thank you. >> my name is tim kingston, i'm representing the public defenders racial justice committee. there seems to be a fundamental misunderstand ongoing of the legislation. it does not prevent surveillance cameras. this ordinance is about safety. it's about privacy and safety and physical safety. in a world where we're surveiled, hacked by commercial interests and government interests, this is a step to prevent people getting snooped on. surveillance technologies make our communities less safe. they increase the number of unnecessary interactions between police and people of color, and may result in fatal consequences or misidentifications.

high tech surveillance has been misused elsewhere. in washington state, the system is used by the police department there and have not informed anyone about this. in florida, student activist was spied on by the police simply for engaging in first amendment activities. even in this city, an attorney found himself under surveillance because there is misidentification of his license plate reader. these are all problems that can be evaded with the use of the legislation. surveillance without any oversight makes us a lot less safe and less free. we deserve a seat at the table to develop these policies. as it stands, without this legislation, law enforcement can put in place surveillance technology that tracks our movements, conversations and private lives. the least we can do is bring government agencies from overseeing our every move.

the ordinance gives san franciscans the power to rein in such technology. i wholeheartedly support it as does my committee. >> my name is peter and i live in district 5. when i think about surveillance technology, i particularly think of mass surveillance technology. those that surveil all persons in an area and i particularly think of the dangers of abuse by law enforcement. these technologies, including wall mounted cameras, body worn cameras and license plate readers can be part of the over-policing of marginalized communities, because the footage may be potentially misleading as a "new york times" article, police body cameras, what do you see, demonstrated. and because they might send footage to other agencies.

including ice, which is in violation of our sanctuary city promise. it's why we have the 4th amendment. surveillance of specific persons with a clear and legitimate purpose can be done and should only be done with a warrant. proper oversight is critical. that is why i support the proposed ordinance to require oversight over the purchase and use of surveillance equipment. thank you. >> hello. i'm the government relations coordinator for the government on islamic relations. i think there has been a lot of misunderstanding what this ordinance does. as supervisor peskin said, it is not going to stop surveillance, it's not going to prevent law enforcement from using the technology, but it creates a public process in order to

determine what surveillance technology should be acquired, or how it should be used. having use policies to make sure it's not abused. that actually will protect our community that is going to make sure there isn't going to be the abuse, or to make sure who is going to be having access to this type of technology. such as other federal agencies. so i think that it is critically important to have a surveillance ordinance such as this to be enacted in the city and county san francisco. the facial technology, i'm concerned, one, the inaccuracies, even if it was accurate, i'm concerned with the chilling of our free speech. people are going to rallies and demonstrations, they're going to be thinking twice about whether they want to do this, because this footage could be used against them.

even if they're doing something lawful. especially in the muslim community is concerned about this technology as it has been used against muslims. ramadan, lots of mosques are working with police departments in order to make sure their places of worship are secure. would they feel comfortable doing that if they know there is facial recognition and other surveillance practices that are wrongfully used? i urge you -- [bell ringing]. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is paul lee. i'm a merchant in chinatown. today i come here and represent some other merchant also. i'm running a grocery store.

every day, a lot of people come in, they steal. since i installed a camera, if they pick up one orange or apple, i let them go. but sometimes they steal, $10, $100 merchandise. that's ridiculous. i tell them, i have the camera and caught you in action. so they look at it. okay. they don't want to fight. they just give us back the merchandise. but we cannot ask the police come, if they know the police are going to come and look at the camera, what he steals, probably that is why -- right now, if we take them to the

police department, it's very hard, because they don't steal over $700, we cannot do anything. but the cameras, at least they can do interview, scare them. they caught everything here. it's much peaceful. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. tracy rosenberg for open privacy and media alliance. supervisor peskin said this, but to reiterate, this is a community oversight ordinance. that's its point. what we're doing here is having a discussion about the appropriate uses and the inappropriate uses of surveillance technology. that is what the ordinance is for. it's to set up a forum so we can do that, because in reality

without this kind of process, we never have these conversations. things are just installed and basically, you guys find out about it after somebody sues you and says my civil rights were abused, i was spied on, some cop looked up his ex in the database. you know, after something bad happens. the point is we're trying to create this forum so all these people here to talk about, it's creating a forum and the opportunity. that's what we mean when we say take surveillance out of the shadows. we mean have this conversation up front. because after mistakes have been made and after lawsuits have been filed, it's not the time to figure out these lines have been crossed. and they are crossed. all over the country and frequently. and it has happened here. with regard to facial recognition, because that is

really the only thing -- [bell ringing] -- where we're taking a position and saying no. just briefly to tell you a story, just last week a 21-year-old student at brown university found herself on a photograph put out by the sri lankan police department as a suspect in the bombings there. she has family over there, people were coming for her relatives. it was facial recognition software that misidentified her because it's not good at women. it's not good at -- [bell ringing] >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. thank you. >> good morning. my name is... -- -- [speaking chinese]

>> translator: this is a resident in vicitation valley. her main concern today is to make sure we have personal public safety. >> translator: it's important to have appropriate surveillance cameras in public places so that they can help to reduce crimes. just three days ago, there was some attempts to rob the house

three doors from me. there were no cameras, but neighbors were alerted, so the perpetrators were arrested. installation of surveillance cameras is progressive, therefore, we are urging to have cameras installed in strategic places. thank you. good morning. alice with stop crime sf. we appreciate you working with us to ensure the privacy and safety of all who live and work

in our city. i'm encouraged to hear the ordinance states that city departments may use and receive surveillance footage, but press the pause on voting for the ordinance. the huge concern is the people who provide video footage anonymously. they should not need to comply with the regulations of 19b. this would force anonymous individuals who regularly provide video to register their identity and pose a risk to their safety. no long be afforded the safety and privacy of their identity. merchants should not need to comply with the regulations for the police to receive and review their video evidence. do individuals and merchants really need full board of supervisor to regularly provide video to aid police with

identifying suspects? these requirements should be struck. section 19b-4 says uses of surveillance technology under the ordinance will not have a despair impact on any community or group. unquote. surveillance videos have a disparate impact on groups like criminals. why would you not allow evidence to be freely submitted? don't put a ban on facial technology. it's improving and it's necessary, at a time with assaults on our schools, churches and public events. i'm sure we can work together to amend this ordinance to maintain safety and privacy. thank you. >> supervisors, my name is christina ing.

[speaking chinese] >> translator: so this legislation affects our residents in the community. needs to increase transparency, otherwise, it will be regressive for us.

so, i think what she meant is that the policy needs the input. it needs the input of a lot of residents as well, it cannot just be done without input. so all the devices, electronic devices by the police are helpful. so with these devices, it would improve safety, so, therefore, i think essentially she's opposing this ordinance.

so if this ordinance passes, it will create a barrier for law enforcement. thank you. my name is frank. yes, there are serious civil liberties questions at stake here. we need to have a conversation, but there is a better way to do it. first, we urge you to pass the resolution mandating that the departments come up with a policy within 270 days or a year. then let's take this out of the shadows. none of us have copies of any of the amendments. supervisor peskin's office refused to provide them last thursday and friday. let's have the conversation up front and in public as somebody said. lets mandate that stakeholders be in the process.

where are the merchants, business groups? and anti-crime and victims' rights groups as well as the social justice groups? and then let's send it to the police commission. and then you can go through the legislative process, we understand it's hard work, but we expect you to do your jobs. you can do that. some say the ordinance doesn't stop surveillance. but it does after certain deadlines pass. you can do it correctly. there -- san francisco has many big crowd events. do we want to say to every white supremacist, hey, san francisco is holding a lunar new year parade, but we're restricting cameras, so you can blow it up with impunity. same thing with the pride parade. oakland exempt major crowd events from their ordinance.

bo san francisco should do the same. remember, remember this, if san francisco has a major terrorist event, be sure that the news media look at what you do here today. it's your responsibility to make sure we're safe. you can fix this ordinance and do the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i'm not going to read any more cards, so if there is anyone who wants to speak, now is the time -- >> good morning. my name is -- i know number one

has come up. thank you. [inaudible] >> yes, good morning. my name is bridgett. i'm with stop crime and i live in district 7. throughout the ordinance which i had read has a lot of red tape and i believe that it can hinder the police officers, other departments such as atf, we obviously know that we have violent crimes, burglaries, hate crimes, terrorism, and we're in the mecca of technology of san francisco and i believe that san francisco should take the leadership and example of using surveillance technology in partnership with sfpd, f.b.i., homeland security. we show we're a diverse community and we're here out of

our own time. we're not getting paid for this and we're just asking for you to just look at this ordinance, and make amendments. we appreciate all your hard work, and yours, supervisor peskin, for creating the ordinance, but we're asking certain things such as when you're requesting footage, you have to go through the supervisors and then you have to then ask for inviting a reason why. this is all red tape. it's hard enough to get any kind of ordinance passed, but this ordinance, in particular, i think we should just pause and speak to different associations. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. [speaking chinese]

>> translator: she lives in the tenderloin district. she is here today to talk abo about -- [speaking chinese] >> translator: she's here to tell a real story. somebody is going to make a report to the police, they need to learn english as well.

>> translator: when this person made the report to the police, the officer explained there are many restrictions that law enforcement have to follow. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so this officer apologized because of all the legal matters, and things that the officer could not do. so this person said, while i

respect the legal things, but what about my basic privacy, you know, laws for me? [speaking chinese] >> translator: [speaking chinese] >> translator: many people like to blame the law enforcement for things, but... but who actually should get the blame? actually, it's you guys.

the board of supervisors. the reason is, many laws are made here and so it's caused a lot of restrictions so the office its could not carry out their duties. [bell ringing] so she's pleading for more reasonable measures so that the offices can carry out their duties. thank you. >> supervisor ronen: marlene, would you mind translating this next one? we're going to take the next speaker and then i'm going to recess until -- what? i know. i'm going to take the next

speaker and then we're going to recess until 11:30 because of the swearing in of the fire chief. >> okay, supervisors. [speaking chinese [ ] >> supervisor walton: wanted to say thank you to the viz valley community. always get excited when the constituents are here. >> may i make things simple? can we have them raise their hands if they're opposed to the legislation. can you do that? >> supervisor ronen: sure. [speaking chinese] >> supervisor ronen: great. thank you so much. i'll take this last speaker and then we're going to recess until

11:30. >> i also have an at-risk student program for 30 years of all races and creeds. the marina is under siege right now. we had up -- and our tourists are getting damaged. mainly asians. and they are getting robbed almost every day. our wonderful captain joe has taken it from 22 a day down to 1 or 2 a week, but then it splurges. we have to protect them. surveillance cameras on the back of the palace of fine arts are a necessity. we have another problem. i have fought for the homeless in getting help, but the north

bay is dumping 20-40 a month in our neighborhood. and the only way that i can catch them is with the surveillance camera and with facial input. the ones they're giving to us are really certifiably sick. and they come every two weeks, or every week, depending on my schedule, i cannot talk about it in public, because we're trying to catch the license plates. within a day or two, something happens to our merchants. [bell ringing] last friday, lucky jeans, boot camp, all were broken into the same night. we have problems. we have a problem with our homeless. one that lived on one of the wealthiest streets in the world and now she's on the street, because of her illness. and we have to protect them, too. and i