our records independent of how any other department could choose to release those records, even when they have those records. i'm just saying that none of that existed before, and while we developed our own protocol about what that could and should look like concurrently, we were also trying to collaborate with the other departments that had similar records so that as we had to do things like digitalized our record so they could be released readily and easily that part could be collaborated, especially with some of the more records that existed like body worn camera records or old videotapes, or old documents that were being released concurrently with the presumption that other requests were being made to other agencies but without preparing all -- all of them to see what you have done so we can do shortcuts. we have done all of our own work

, and part of the delay has been in that shifting resources to this in our department, which is much smaller than many of the other departments that have the same records has been a voluminous ordeal. when i come back, i can talk to about the hours that it has taken for us, that we have spent in all of these things, and to keep in mind the context that this is all taking place now before there had been any budget accommodations or staff issues that allow us to work on this separate from ongoing responses. >> i like to move onto some of those questions. >> i have two more there like to finish. one of the things, you've indicated you are collaborating with other departments. other then the sfpd, what other departments are you collaborating with? >> city attorney office. >> let's put aside the tapes that you would have to transcribe, what about reports.

you are easily able to redact and get those out to the public. why haven't those being done? on my third and final point is when you do your presentation next week, i would like to know how you prioritize or what the d.p.a.'s plan or procedure is with respect to prioritizing all the request that come in in addition to knowing how many requests have come in. i think the public is very upset that the law that was passed in january, no one is complying with it. >> i'm happy to answer that, but i can only answer for d.p.a. in terms of the request or the specification about the specific reports that can be read, redacted, and turned around very quickly, none of the request came in for individual reports. most of the request, if not all the request that came in have been voluminous and required a full analysis of all of our records, including digitalized,

nondigitalized gold records that had to be listened to, transcribed, and redacted and prepared. i mean that is the short answer. >> okay. i have a quick follow-up. have you considered a rolling release, even for rung -- one request. rather than waiting to transcribe the most difficult case tape at the end, how about giving the material upfront and following up with the lab report later? >> i think that's what you can expect and what you will see happening. >> i've asked the city attorney to work with the commission office to develop a single written protocol that will apply across the board for d.p.a. and to the police department and to the commission so that we all are following the same process, we don't have to do it hand-in-hand, but we should all be approaching this in the same way. we maybe right now, what it is not in writing, and there is my concern that people need to be held accountable. i disagree with the notion that

we are not complying. part of the compliance is receiving the request and then digging through this material. the ultimate endgame is getting it out, and we need to pick that up. but the city to suggest we're we are not complying is not right. >> a few things, i am not into sandbagging people and this is not a pop quiz, so i do want you to come back with specifics and numbers because i think -- >> she has more the specific details. >> i do want to give the opportunity to come back and present specifics on when we this on the agenda and have a full discussion with presentations. i think that would be the most helpful thing for both of us. i also want to agree with president hirsch. we talked about this at the commission and we all agreed there should be communication between d.p.a. and the city attorney's office, if only

because there's information that they may have that you may not be aware of. and vice versa. because you're not aware of some critical pieces of information. so we all agree that you should be working collaboratively together, even though you are making individual decisions about what to disclose. and then the last thing is, everyone keeps saying next week, but i don't believe that the commissioner will be here next week's, so whatever this should be, we should decide what it is to make sure the community knows that everyone knows and they're expected to come back and talk about these issues. i don't thank you be next week, but whatever the date is -- >> we will make sure it is noticed with plenty of time. >> i'm really confused. you talk and talk, and i've no clue what you're talking about. let me back up for a moment.

i just read 1421 as a procedure we're putting off. but what i hear what you're saying is your collaborating with the police department with documents that you will provide, and i'm confused by that. your agency responded in 1980 -- was started in 1982 and was strengthened in 95 to be an independent oversight, investigative committee of the police department, and so this 1421 applies to you in terms of a record that you have in your possession, and the idea that you are going to collaborate and meet with the coordinator with the police department and have a consensus of what documents are going to be given, and if you have a dispute to go to the tee attorney's office. i don't see the d.p.a. giving up their independence. you do what you need to do under 1421, he does what he needs the 14 half one, and if you have an issue, you can certainly go to the city attorney with the legal issue or the policy issue. i'm confused because i hear what

you're saying. it looks like you are following this 1421 before he had given documents up, and i don't know why you would subservience lee -- be subservient to the independence of that department when it comes to 1421. there's a difference if you need to get a document or something, but you have to reach a consensus and you want to have the same document going out. i think that really interferes with the independence of your agency, and i just went to your may call convention, and one of the first things that it talks about -- there's 13 categories of a real independent agency, and the first one is independence. is proper funding, independence, community support, and i don't see you giving community support if you're going to have the police department dictate what documents you will be getting from your investigation. you are not subservient to them. you should not put yourself in a position that you are subservient to them, and so the way this works is you a

coordinate the relief and you will reach a consensus. that is very disturbing to me. the rambling response is you following this policy and that is disturbing as well. >> let me respond in a way that is not rambling. i am not subservient to the police department and the release. we do maintain our independence. when i talked about the collaboration, what i was talking about was a collaboration of resources so that if we are using outside agencies, we don't have to get an independent contract that the city will have a contract with an agency that will be evaluating and digitalized in, doing some of the work that needs to be done so doesn't have to be re-created on similar or same documents, but we have different documents that they have in any of the other agencies. so there is no -- >> i tried to reach a consensus with the department to be consistent with the documents that are released to the public. >> we will not ever be able to do that because they have a different interpretation. because some of the definitions are subjective and have

different definitions per agency i know. >> thank you. >> i was following up on commissioner taylor's point, and we were in agreement that there was first degree of coordination which is absolutely incorrect. this commissioner has never said that. i appreciate you saying it very clearly and strongly that 1421, you are an independent agency, you have one body to answer two, and you were sitting with it, and so if i was to learn that you were running things by the department, i would be very disturbed by that and i don't expect that is happening. i appreciate you saying that strongly and clearly tonight. >> just one other question, your report, there -- or sustained findings -- >> sorry. >> no worries. >> so your report that has sustained findings after the

investigation you have done, are you turning those over to the police department for review, for reduction, or why aren't those being released to the public? the case reports, they are your department's findings on its own investigation. so why are those reports being rolled out on a continual basis? >> they are part of what we are preparing as a release. we have only released one response oh, and that was to -- i don't know if we are like to say who it goes to. >> we have only released one so far. our responses will be, and are rolling, but we have only completed one so far, and those records are part of the record that are being reviewed to roll out independently. >> the sustained findings, are you sending those over to the police department for the review those go straight to the public, or for the person -- does that

make sense? >> so you did it with one? >> yes. >> and you didn't have the police department review the report before you sent it to the requesting party? >> no. >> vice president taylor? >> there might be some confusion here. thankfully there is a record of all commission meetings, so the record with itself. and this -- discussion is not the same as collusion. i think the director has it exactly right. the discussion that we have was that it made sense for d.p.a. to be in discussion with us of p.d. and the city attorney's office because there's information that sfpd might have that would inform decisions that d.p.a. makes and vice versa, what ultimately, the decisions are in

the purview of the particular agency. that's not collusion, that's not directing, that is discussion. >> i just have to clarify. let's not mix apples and oranges he is required to give full documents in his possession, from his investigation. this idea that i have to get something from the police department so i can turn it over is in his file. we can look back at the records, but i am alarmed to hear there is even a proposal here that says that. >> let me correct it again to make 100% clear about what i was talking about. when there is one document or one piece of evidence that exists on both sides, let's say a 200 hour document a videotape information that has to be digitalized for distribution. i have a copy, the police department or some other agency as a seam copy, it seems to me

more efficient rather than not to figure out if those records do exist, not to re-create the labor that goes into digitalized in voluminous records or redistributing similar records if you did, for whatever purpose across different agencies. [simultaneous talking] >> if once i doesn't want to release it or heavily redacted there portion versus your interpretation of the release. is one thing to say resources we will give it all of us to pay for, it is another -- we can

talk about that. i already expressed how i see that. >> all right. let's move on. i think we've got it. >> okay. >> item three c., commissioner reports. reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. discussion will be limited to determining whether the celt -- to calendar and if the issues raised her future commission meetings. the commission present report and commissioner reports. >> i have no report at this time >> commissioner hurst and i attended a conference, and we were able to stay for most of the morning and i stayed for the entire day. i see uncle bobby here who presented and his wife, and other people who presented. it was very interesting. the bay area came with independent auditors, and oversight committees from fresno , everywhere else, cities that are looking to set oversight up, cities that already have oversight, and it

was informative, there's a lot of things that we don't do. there they were semi- openers for me. as i said, there was the best practices, there wasn't experts that talked about the 13 principles for effective civilian oversight a number 1 was independence, the other one was clearly defined adequate jurisdictional authority. access to -- full cooperation, sustained stakeholder support, that was really important see you can have legitimacy and support in doing your job, adequate funding and resources, is something this commission really needs to look into. we do not have adequate resources and funding. public reporting and transparency, which we are talking about for 1421, policy and pattern analysis, which this commission does not have. we heavily rely on d.p.a. if you weren't here, we would be blind.

we really need to put on the agenda, we need our own policy person and pattern analysis in terms of overseeing both of these really important departments, community outreach, community involvement, you already have confidentiality and protection from retaliation. that is another thing we need to talk about. it was really well done. i think in september in detroit they will have a conference in detroit, and i would recommend -- and i want to thank you for sending so many people there, but i would recommend you go to detroit, the recommend commissioners go to detroit as well because we can learn how to do oversight better. we can learn the best practice, and we can also see our deficiencies and how we can try to correct them. >> i agree 100%. i'm glad you guys went and chose to come to participate in the conference. i always send a large percentage

of my staff to those conferences , and we will be present and actively engaged in detroit as well. >> commissioner taylor and i got the opportunity to attend an evening of remembrance at headquarters. as we know, as a department, we have lost about 100 men and women who have actively served during the line of duty. supervisor man woman was there as well. to be amongst those fallen officers and their families a very. we had a great recitation a slideshow that took place, and i also wanted to say as a liaison for d.p.a. to the commission, i wanted to say that i made sure i publicly stated that i believe paul and his team is doing wonderful job. i had the opportunity to sit down with sara monitor and sit down with sarah hawkins. i would like to calendarize the presentation all-around civic

bridge which is a conversation that i got to have with d.p.a. which will help out with the technology for a lot of the discussion that we are having today. i would love to see that put on the calendar and have a presentation around civic bridge and it pays speaks to the resources as well, too. >> thank you. i just wanted to say two things. i wanted to let everyone know that we have a call today for the cgl with the chief of police , commissioner taylor and i, as well as the attorneys from the d.o.j. we believe we made some progress and there were a few minor areas that we still need to work out. i had requested that the working group set a time and date to get up and running so they would have a working document. i was hoping to have a working document for the working group to work off of because of the issues that we have had in the past with the biased working group, so i'm hopeful that we

will have one document to start, to work from, and that we can begin the biased working group, i'm a little disappointed in the process of how the working group date was set, but in any event, it is set for monday at headquarters from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. i also, i'm not sure if it is now that would be the time to request to calendar the 1421. >> let's wait until he get to that item on the agenda. >> no, this is reporting only, not agenda. okay. okay, ready for the next item. >> 3d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration of future commission meetings. action. >> bingo. >> thank you. i am going to ask to calendar the 1421 issue. i'll ask for june 19th.

the aclu attorney that was here tonight will be out of the country from june 1st until mid june but will be back available at tonight's meeting. >> i think that is a neighborhood meeting. >> is it? >> it is our third meeting that month. it was at the park station. we probably would have to be following that. >> does july 3rd work for you? >> we don't have to decide that now, but we will make sure you are available. >> in the old other thing i would like to, is in addition to agenda eyes it properly, i would like to put it on for review and discussion on the protocol process that you had described in terms of you asking the city attorney to draft a protocol process for both the police commission, d.p.a. and the police department. i would also like, with respect

to that protocol process, that the city attorney will be drafting, there should be a definition or a process of more detail with respect to what the threat assessment is, and what the agency will be doing when it makes the threat assessment and how those procedures will be in place. i do want a more thorough analysis with respect to the protocol process that the city attorney will be drafting, and secondly, with putting it on the agenda and putting it on the calendar, i want us to be more brown to the -- brought to the unity can come in voicing concerns on the entire 1421 process, whether it be the protocol that we have drafted, or our compliance or noncompliance however, they view it, or how they characterize it. >> i would ask then that we put this on the agenda so we can see

what the department has agreed to and we can discuss it and part of that discussion would include where it is in the meet and confer process. >> i think we were told it is out, it is finished. >> it was out, you mean it is done, i guess there is no issues >> weather changes made as part of coming out of it, and weather changes made, and what changes were made, so at least we are up-to-date up to date on that. i would like us to get a date on the homeless presentation. i think -- i would like to give them a date so they can prepare. the 19th is a community meeting so the 12 would work for them. >> do we already have that calendar for the 12th? >> we're still waiting for the department.

>> i don't know if it has to be a mutual, but it can be a joint session. right now it is on for the 12 th. if there is a problem for that, i will let you know, but right now it is the 12th. >> is important that we make the presentation. and the 19th is a community one. >> as we calendar the conversation around 1421 with d.p.a., just ensuring that we have this agenda highest also around the civic bridge. >> one other thing, i'm sorry forgot to ask, i think we should calendar the bay area legal aid

letter and filing of a lawsuit for the follow-up on the committee for the action that commissioner taylor was undertaking with respect to the police report. i did receive word from the community that something has gone awry, and o. his hoping to get back on track. i know you have been working diligently on it, but i think we need a debt -- and update. >> i don't need to be in closed session now that there's litigation. we will be meeting with council, i assume. i have not seen the complaint yet, but we'll have we will have to go into closed session. >> i requested that it be on calendar it was originally calendared for today, but because of the schedule, we talked about moving it. we can wait until we confer with council, but my understanding was we be talking about it at some point.

>> can we have a public discussion of what has been going on -- >> there are three points i would like to make. unless i missed the agenda being taken off calendar, it is for closed session on item nine b. >> i requested an open session. >> correct, if you want to have an open session discussion, you can do that as well to talk about certain aspects, but we will have a discussion in closed session under item nine b. >> about litigation? >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> okay. , next item. >> this is a matter of housekeeping. the next police commission meeting will be held here at city hall room 400 on may 15th , 2019 at 5:30 p.m. the public is now invited to comment on items three a through 3d. >> public comment on the items we have addressed.

>> greetings. as you know, i am a man called clifford and i believe you all know why i am here. as i don't see mary daly. this is been essentially achieve scott's crime report. he neglected to mention the biggest criminals in san francisco and that would be the federal reserve bank. is a violates article one, section eight of the united states constitution, in article three, section three of the united states constitution. again, i am requiring, i'm not requesting, i'm requiring that the san francisco police department arrests the key executives of the federal reserve bank as they are levying war against not only the san franciscan people, the california people, the american people, but that would be arresting mary see daily, mark a gould, deborah, tracy basinger, kayla hanson, philip johnson,

eric rivera, and adrian rodriguez. these are the biggest criminals in san francisco, and as far as crime, homelessness, all that stuff, that is all based in the fraudulent monetary policy which is based on user he, and this goes against the constitution, and as long as you all submit to this, you are engaged in treason , so you are not law enforcement, you are 100% violating the law, and until you apprehend these treasonous criminals, you do not have any right to call yourselves law enforcement, and it is a complete mockery to the law to call yourself law enforcement. once again, i am requiring you arrest these individuals. once again, i am requiring you arrest the key executives of the federal reserve bank of san francisco.

-- so also in terms -- i mean, you know, frankly, i don't think that we'll ever have tasers so i'm not going to go into a lot of detail on what your plans are to have another board that's bureaucratic that has no teeth for the public to actually

enforce anything. so also in terms of the memorandum it seems that you showed it to this commission until you didn't want to because the p.o.a. had influence and we need to know what the p.o.a. said and how it changed up to that point. you said that we were seeing it for 2.5 years and all of a sudden the commission doesn't see it. and maybe because you think of us as the audience which i have requested repeatedly for you to not call us because we're the public. you don't care about the fact that you're supposed to be for us. one report in 128 days, seriously? and all of that speech that you gave, we're supposed to believe that? we maintain control over the instruments that we have created according to the brown act. and one report is absurd. i want my report out there where a union leader was thrown against a wall for no damned reason and i didn't get to hear one thing what happened with that and she and i both reported

it. nothing, zero, zilch. you are not working for the people. >> next speaker, thank you. >> jackie barshack, san franciscoians for police accountability. i agree with the previous speaker. tasers will not happen in san francisco. that i'm sure of. and right now that money has been in suspension and so it will probably never be released by the board of supervisors. so what chief scott has outlined is just kind of ideaization of tasers, something to appease the force and the p.o.a. but -- and your complicity by asking him questions and requesting more details into his elaborate plans for tasers, is

just complicity. it's just -- it's just compounding the fantasy. i also request that the m.o.u. that was signed between the d.a. and the sfpd to be voided. that it's an illegal document right now because it did not have the oversight or the complexity of the commission and that now what is being suggested is that you do things backwards and that now you want to see what was agreed to? no. you start out with -- from ground zero, that there is -- there has been no letter, no agreement, no m.o.u. it is a voided document. and, lastly, the behavioral science unit outlines a very

frightening profile of police. their suicide ideaization and drug dependencies and their alcoholism. and no other profession would people be able to operate with these diseases. >> all right, thank you. that was the time. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm known to the community as you thinkel bobby. i'm -- community as uncle bobby. i'm here in regards to the information that i received about this threat assessment of the officers prior to disclosu disclosure. i definitely oppose this idea that this particular policy be

taken into consideration. and even if we considered this as a policy, where is the data that we're talking about that can show that officers' lives have been threatened for the request of simply their personal folder or the information that is in that folder. i definitely would love to see that. because to our knowledge to the data that we know that there has never, ever been a retaliation action taken against a police officer, not just here in the state of california but across the united states in regards to a simple ask of their history. even we can say for an officer involved shooting there's never been an officer's life threatened or taken behind an officer that has shot someone wrongfully. so we are clear that that exis exists. i am a little tired, but at the same time i thought that it was

important that i come and at least speak to this -- to this issue concerning this threat assessment. i would definitely love to be a part of the conversation that's going to take place in the future concerning it and, of course, i would love for families to be here to speak our share of how important 1421 is to us, but, more importantly, that this notification to police officers that their records would be reviewed will, again, delay us getting this information. i believe that is my time but importantly what i'm saying is that these attempted delay... >> all right, thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> hold on one second.

can you put the microphone on? >> yes, i'm sorry. >> can you reset the time? >> we have an extra few seconds. >> this is kathleen gutratna from san francisco, again and responding specifically to the revelation that the d.p.a. has released only one record -- we, to my knowing, tha knowledge, wa request on behalf of four families whose loved ones had been killed by san francisco police. and there were records related to those specific incidents and we received correspondence from the d.p.a. that we'd get -- the d.p.a. would produce documents by june 14, 2019, and that would be the first in a series of production. which appears to suggest that there is a rolling production and my question and my concern both as a member of the public and from the aclu is, what is happening in between? you know, i have worked with and

i have experience with a lot of agencies that in order to ensure and to repair trust gave an index, they provided an index of responsive documents initially as a measure of good faith. and they provided documents on a rolling basis. they provided, you know, initially paper documents and they said that video would take longer. and then those documents came out. and it apeers tha appears to roe production and that june 14th won't be everything but i think that it's a serious concern for a watchdog organization that this delay has occurred. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm sister beatrice, and as well as california families united for justice. i just want to say about

sb-1421, it is a law. and so ever since it came into law i have been traveling around the state of california with the aclu and families fighting the police who don't want to comply with the law. it's just unfair. we would have to comply if a law came into law, we would have to comply. so i'm really -- i mean this new shenanigans is what we call it, because as my husband said, there is no data to support that. it's just another -- another way to not give information. but i'd like to say listening to all of the mental disservices that you offer police officers, you should be willing to use 1421 to clean out your police department. because these officers that have all of these issues -- our community suffers from that. because apparently it's not really working because our

communities are still being abused and why would you cover up for rapists, robbers, murderers? that sb-1421, you already know what is in there. and this should free you as a captain. this should free you as a police department to have a good police department. >> okay, thank you. public comment is closed and we're ready for the next item. >> clerk: line item four, discussion and possible action to department bulletin 19-092, investigative services detail internal affairs, criminal unit name change and responsibilities, modifying dgos, 3, 10, 6 20, 8, 11, and 8.12, discussion and possible action. >> good evening, commander. >> good evening, president hirsch and commissioners, and director henderson and chief

scott. the department bulletin 19-092 does two things. the first is to change the name of i.a. criminal investigations which handles officer-involved criminal investigations to the investigative services detail. which would then now encompass the partnership with the d.a. so homicide would be relieved of its duties of handling i.o. and in-custody deaths and officer-involved situations that result in great bodily injury or death. as for the d.g.o.s, i know that there was talk earlier on. this does not change the d.g.o.s in policy or procedure. this is simply a name change. it is replacing the word "homicide" with "investigative service detail." so "homicide "would no longer present to the return of duty panel, the investigate service detail would. so there's no -- when you look at the list of changes, i know

that was a concern and this is literally a name change and not how the policies or the procedures are currently drafted in the d.g.o.s. >> okay. i think that you heard some concern on whether there's a policy change, and if so, i think that the commission will reserve its right to consider that once we see the m.o.u. but if this is just a name change and you're asking us to vote on the name change? >> the name change can be done by the chief of police. the part of the new duties -- because i.s.d., what we're calling for short, will be working with the d.a.'s office. if there's an i.o.s. in-custody death tonight they will respond instead of homicide. that's the only difference that this bulletin is pointing out. >> i think that the question is that until we actually look at the m.o.u., i don't know that this commission feels prepared to vote and approve the change in functions because we actually would like to see how it's spelled out. that's my sense from the

commission. so i think we want to see the m.o.u. before we approve not just the name change but a functional change, right? >> that's your determination -- >> well, it's a functional change is what i'm hearing. judge, it would be like changing sex crimes used to be its own unit and it took over into s.v.u. and it's under an umbrella. so, yes, we are taking away from homicide because homicide also works on homicide cases with the d.a. and it's completely independent of the bureau of investigation that falls under the chief of staff in order to maintain the independence with the d.a.'s office. and to keep it in a more secluded area, that's where it's going. >> i think i would want to see the actual m.o.u. -- because i don't really know what i'm voting on. >> don't know what you guys agreed on. >> we have to see how it actually works. we may be fine with it and to tell you the truth i'm not sure that i heard anything that

bothers me other than the fact that i haven't seen it. >> i understand that. but the commission should know that they will be responding. it's just that when it comes to return to duty, that these issues -- and just, you know, a little farther in scope, we have been in conversations with d.a. and we have a major meeting with d.p.a. and the d.a. present with over 40 participants going over all of this. so just to give some -- alleviate some concerns of the commission, i know that you haven't seen the m.o.u., but there's been a lot of work on this and the parties involved do know what is going on as far as responses to officer-involved shootings etc. >> i ask that this matter to be calendared after we see the m.o.u. and we can have a conversation there. commissioner dejesus. >> i agree and you say that the duties are change and you need to detail how the duties have changed and it sounds like you'll isolate this unit and how it will be isolated. will there be a wall between the homicide and the investigation? and if these investigators are

part of the homicide team. >> it's the name change. and so this is internal affairs criminal -- completely different unit. completely different building. secluded unto itself and reporting up to the chief of staff. there's no homicide detectives on it and no chain of command through the investigations and it reports basically through me and chief sinez and to the chief. >> we will have to after we see it. >> because it's taking on this new scope -- >> right. >> it's a name change. >> i think if you are going to ask a commission like this or the department wants the commission to vote we have to see the underlying documents. commissioner elias? >> i was going to say to take it off calendar -- >> yeah, we're all i in agreeme. >> okay, thank you. >> next item.

>> clerk: public comment. >> any public comment? comments closed. next item. >> clerk: line item 5 is discussed and line item 6, general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the comigd as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.p.a. personnel. under police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police or d.p.a. personnel, nor commissioners are required to respond to questions prohibited by the public but may provide a brief response. and individual commissioners and police and d.p.a. personal should refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. >> all right, general public comment. please come up. good evening. >> hello, everyone.

as usual i'm here to talk about my son and unsolved homicide. and i like to use the overhead. i'm just putting these down because i hardly ever get to show them. all of the unsolved homicides. where were you when i was murdered? and to say that i'm here because of my son who was murdered august 14, 2006. and to this day no justice for him or his murder. i bring these names of the people that were involved with shooting my son. thomas hanibel and paris moffatt and andrew debous, and anthony carter and anthony hunter and marcus carter. one is deceased. i missed coming last week because i've been dealing with a

lot with my son, and i just don't want people to forget my child. i know that i come here with these pictures all the time. but this mostly is for the sf-gov television, for people to see this and see what i'm going through and what i'm still going through. my son had a mother. he has a father. and this is what they left me with. i'm still seeking justice for my son. and a d.a. knows who killed their son and the police know who killed their son except for no witnesses. what do we do? i'm just asking for justice for my child. you have all of the names. i need something done and i know

that it sounds redundant and i keep repeating this but something nodes to be done. >> the tip line is... any other public comment? general public comment? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: line item 7, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 9 below, closed session, including public comment on item 8, vote whether to hold item 9 in closed session. >> any package comment on our going into closed session? seeing none, comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: line item 8, whether to hold item 9 in closed session, including vote on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege with regards to item 9a and b, and san francisco administration code section 67.10, action. >> is there a motion to assert t client-attorney posit

>> second.orney posit >> all in favor? >> opposed? carries. is there a motion to adjourn? >> second. >> all in favor? opposed? >> aye.

adjourned.

[gavel] >> good afternoon welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm the chair of this committee aaron peskin joined by supervisor ahsha safai and matt

haney to my left. today is our meeting for monday may 6, 2019. ms. major do you have any announcements? >> please silence all cell phones and electronic devices, complete speaker cards and copy of documents should be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. please readed first item. [agenda item read] >> supervisor peskin: this request was brought to me by the tina modotti committee. with that ms. skully, please

come forward. you want to thank you in advance for your generous offer and gift. you want to thank my staff for working with you as well as the public works folks who will be directed by this colleagues if you have questions, jeremy spitz from public works is on hand. >> thank you. good afternoon members of the commission. i'm here on behalf of the tina modotti heritage committee.

the committee was founded over a decade ago with the goal to commemorate the fine arts photographer tina modotti. it was of proclamation passed by the board of supervisors recognizing tina modotti for her contribution to the cultural heritage to the city. at this time, we also have an event honoring modotti at the bookstore and more recently in 2017, we collaborated with the americano for an opening event for that expedition which features some of her work. the proposal represents next step to honoring modotti by installing a commemorative plaque. with this plaque we hope to bring public consciousness to tina modotti the best unknown

photographer. tina modotti immigrated from italy in 1913 at the age of 16. here she -- she quickly rising as celebrated actress. after brief career in hollywood film, modotti moved to mexico city. she became into her own as a celebrated photographer and become part of team of political artists. modotti used her camera to paint of mexico and common people. modotti gave up photography after only seven years.

tina modotti always considered san francisco to be her adopted city. much of her ideology and extraordinary creative ideas were shaped. we hope this plaque will help top remind everyone the legacy of san francisco as a gathering place as an artist and honoring modotti. seek to memorialize women artist who shaped the city's cultural life. i like to thaek it the opportunity to thank supervisor peskin as well as calvin from the supervisor's office. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you ms. skully. thank you again for your work and generosity.

actually was in mexico city over in deregulation and saw signs of ms. modotti. iare there any questions from committee member? are there any members of the public like to speak on item number 1? you have no speaker cards. public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to send this to the full board with recommendation? so moved. >> supervisor peskin: moved by supervisor safai. next item please. [agenda item read] colleagues we heard this last week and continued it one week with the

amendment to the title. is there any public comment on it item? please come forward. >> thank you chairman peskin and supervisors. ryan patter son on behalf of the san francisco coalition and other individual owners. we filed additional evidence which you have before you today. supervisors, san francisco planning code section 101.1 requires finding of consistency with the general plan and priority policies for any legislation requiring an initial study under ceqa. that's why the draft legislation that you had before you, included the findings. the change as of today is to remove those findings of consistency. the reason is, clearly the committee is trying to make it look like this is not a zoning or land use ordinance under ceqa. fact of the matter is, it is as

evidence by the initial graphing. the superior court cases under submission and based on how the hearing went last week, we do expect to prevail in the litigation. it takes no sense to be considering this today prior to receiving the judge's decision on that case which we expect any time. whenever judge is ready. it does make sense for you to wait and see which parts of the prior legislation are ruled to be illegal and then if the board decides to proceed with some new version, based on something that would be lawful, you'll be free to do so. this proposed ordinance will shut people out of housing. people who are able to afford rent rooms by the week today will no longer be able to do that under 30-day minimum. we appreciate your good intentions but the outcome will be terrible for lot of people and urge you to reconsider.

thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon board. i opposed 3 30-day minimum stay. we're a hotel. our business is ran by the week or by the day. these are residential units. we've been s. r.o. hotel owner for over 20 years. however, this new law if passed will force us to shut down the hotel and basically not rent to

anybody. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i will reiterate what i said at the last hearing, this is a law that we already passed unanimously with the board of supervisors. slightly adjusting. 32 days is law today. it is the subject of a legal dispute. next speaker please. >> thank you supervisors. i think at the moment, the city stipulated not to enforce 32-day rule based on the appellant decision that happened last october. i represent one the hotels of san francisco. you made a point last time too, i want to keep this brief. really ask supervisors to give us a seat at the table when it comes to making policies like this. we're san franciscans, when these positions come to past, we're not seated at