>> good afternoon and welcome to the may 14th, 2019 regular meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madame clerk, please call the

roll. >> thank you, mr. president. [roll call] >> you have a quorum. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance]

>> on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at san francisco government t.v. who record each of the meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. madame clerk, are there any communications? >> yes, i have two. dated may 6th, from supervisor walton, and dated today from supervisor ronen requesting to be excused from today's meeting. >> okay. can i have a motion to excused supervisors ronen and walton from today's meeting? motion made by supervisor viewer and seconded by supervisor peskin. without objection, supervisors ronen and walton are excused.

okay. next item. approval of the minutes. >> special order at 2:00 p.m. is a the mayor's appearance before the board. the honorable mayor, london breed, is present in the chamber there being no question submitted from supervisors, the mayor may address the board for up to five minutes. >> okay. , madame mayor, there are no topics submitted by supervisors today, we welcome you anyways to hear whatever you want, but you have a time limit, though. thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone that is here today. i just wanted to talk a little bit about conservatorship. right now on our streets we have people who are struggling with mental illness and substance use disorder to the point where they can't help themselves. people who we all see and want to help, but people who won't

and can't accept help. that's why along with supervisor mandelman and cosponsors, supervisors brown and stefani, we are proposing legislation to bring care to those that our current laws can't reach. this is just one part of a broader effort to strengthen our mental health system. this includes our new director of mental health reform, whose sole job is to look at the system as a whole, and to improve what's working, and to fix what is not. we have funded 100 new behavioral health beds which will help people transition out of the hospital, including 14 new beds at the healing center, 72 new substance use recovery beds, and 14 new beds at hummingbird. on top of that, yesterday we announced that in this upcoming budget, we are going to fund 30 more beds for people suffering from mental health and substance use disorder.

this is the most substantial of investment at residential treatment beds in a generation. these step down beds paired with wraparound services will allow people to transition out of the hospital and into residential treatment, while also freeing up more acute beds for people brought to the hospital under the on voluntarily -- involuntary 5150. we are expanding resources, and we will continue to fund solutions, but it is not enough. we need changes to our policies. governor brown signed s.b. 1045 in september, allowing us to take action here locally and through our conservatorship program, and my staff began doing outreach, working with public health officials, advocates, and other stakeholders. then in october we introduce the legislation to allow us to move forward. since then, along with supervisor mandelman and others, we have been working on and

limitation plans so we can do this the right way. six months after we introduce the legislation, and after this work, this item was finally brought to committee. while that was longer than i anticipated, fine, i understand, this is a complicated issue, but then yesterday the committee voted to delay the legislation, and the committee members expressed their opposition. yesterday at committee, supervisor walton said that this would bring more people into the criminal justice system. let's be clear, when we bring someone under a 5150 involuntary hold to the hospital, we are bringing a person who is in crisis into care, and unfortunately, under our current system, without the law, we do have a mental health system. it is actually 850 bryant street we should not confuse crisis care with locking people up in jail, and that will continue to happen if you don't take action.

supervisor haney, you previously said, we have too many gaps in our system in -- and that arresting people is not the best way to help those people suffering with mental illness on our streets, and i agree. this legislation is about filling those gaps and helping people on our streets into care. this is one solution to the challenges that you all know we are dealing with every single day, and after six months, we get opposition and additional delays, enough already. people in san francisco want us to take action. you all see what we see on the streets every day, with people suffering from mental illness, and i hope none of you ever see the day where you are faced with a situation of a loved one who sadly is living out on the street, suffering from substance use disorder, suffering from mental illness, and there's

nothing that you can do about it we have to make changes now if we want to change what we are dealing with in san francisco, and supervisors, i'm here to ask you today to pleas take action, no more delays. >> thank you, madame mayor for joining us today. this concludes our special order , and this item shall be filed. >> thank you, have a good day. >> okay. , what i would like to do is go back to talking about the board minutes board minutes. are there any changes to these meeting minutes? seeing none, can i have a motion to approve the minutes as presented? motion made by supervisor viewer , and seconded by supervisor stefani. without objection, those minutes will be approved after public

comment. madame clerk, please read the consent agenda. >> items one through three are on consent. they're considered to be routine if a member objects, and i maybe removed and considered separately -- and an item may be removed and considered separately. >> before we start, did ice excuses supervisors? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. would anyone like to sever any items from the consent agenda? seeing none, madame clerk, please call the roll on items one through three. >> one through three... [roll call]

>> there are nine imacs. >> these ordinances are passed unanimously. let's go to the regular agenda and please call items four through seven together. >> items four through seven are for resolutions that extend the united states housing and urban development. item four approves a community develop and block grant, for approximately $24 million for the period beginning july 1st,

2019, through the date when all the funds are expended. >> okay. can we take these -- >> mr. president, my apologies, item five approves $1.5 million grant and item six approves a $7.5 million grant. item five is for the emergency solutions grant program for an unspecified period and item six is for the fiscal year 19-20 -- for the period of 2019 through 2020 housing opportunities for persons with aids program through june 30th, 2024. >> okay. and you read item seven? >> item seven is a 7 million-dollar grant from the home investment partnership program through june 30th, 2024. >> thank you. can we take these items same house, same call? without objection key , these resolutions are adopted unanimously. >> items nine and nine together. >> they pertain to the india

basin park project. it is an in all resolution authorizing regulate --... item nine is a resolution that approves approximately $4.9 million between the recreation and park department in the san francisco bay restoration authority for environmental remediation at 900 in us avenue -- 900 and it -- 900 and us avenue. >> you read eight and nine, right? >> yes. >> can we take these items same house, same call? without objection, the resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call the next item. >> item ten is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to establish a property-based business improvement district

known as the downtown community benefit district for a multiyear assessment and all parcels of land within the district to approve the management district plan, the engineer report, the proposed boundaries and to set a time and place for a public hearing of the board of supervisors on july 16th, 2019 , 3:00 p.m., and to direct the environment of findings. >> can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. >> please go item 11. >> item 11 is an ordinance to amend the ministries of code to revise the hotel conversion ordinance and to affirm the secretive termination. >> okay. , colleagues, candice take this same house, same call? without objection, with or middens is passed on first reading unanimously. please call the next item.

colleagues, can we take this out -- item same house, same call? without objection, this ordinances passed on first reading unanimously. please call the next item. >> thirteen is a resolution to declare the intention of the board of supervisors to rename gilbert street to jeff adachi way. >> colleagues, can we take this same house, same call? without objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. madame clerk, please call item number 14. >> item 14 is an ordinance to amend the administrative code to establish and implement procedures on the acquisition of surveillance technology. >> okay. supervisor peskin? >> thank you, president yee, colleagues. let me start by thanking the members of the rules committee, chair ronen and supervisors walton and mar for indulging me with three hearings on the

ordinance that is before you today and came out of committee with a positive recommendation, which we have been calling to stops the secret surveillance ordinance, and this is the latest iteration of a policy that has been amended quite a bit along the way since it was first introduced in january. this is not a san francisco first, as a matter of fact, i think it will -- we will be the seven city in northern california. it started in santa clara county , and actually was the subject of a statewide bill introduced by state senator jury held that hill that would require technology use policies of every municipality in the state of california. unfortunately that senate bill was the subject of intensive lobbying by the law enforcement lobby and was not ultimately passed into law. as i said in committee last week , the title is a little bit

of a misnomer. this is not really the stop secret surveillance ordinance, it is really an ordinance that is about having accountability around surveillance technology, and with the narrow exception of the facial recognition technology, this is actually not designed to stop the use of any technologies that we currently employ or may use in the future. the fundamental thrust of the law that is before you is to ensure the safe and responsible use of surveillance technology. put simply, this ordinance would require city departments to purchase access or use of surveillance technology to develop use policies for that technology through a public vetting process, and to make those policies available on a public website. how long data is so stored stored, who it is shared with, who has access to it, and in the rapidly evolving world of extremely powerful, some potentially very invasive technologies that can go through

terabyte his of data and fractions of a second, i think this is a public policy discussion worth having. it was revealed a few years ago in the context of black lives matter protests that law enforcement was using cell phone stingrays, which amount on top of vehicles and simulate towers to collect information and eavesdrop on everyone within a certain radius of that vehicle. it is not just law enforcement. we have had recent public debates about radiofrequency identification chips. just a few weeks ago, the examiner reported our own public utilities commission is investing in any technology which would enable streetlamps with video cameras and microphones, potentially capable of reporting street-level conversations. the american civil liberties union reported that immigration customs enforcement is accessing location data from license plate

readers owned by major cities across the country in order to track and facilitate deportation of immigrants. in fact, many of our own city departments, including the m.t.a. and the sfpd and our airport, they own license plate readers and use them for a number of absolutely benign purposes. but as policymakers, we have a fundamental duty to safeguard the public from potential abuses of these rapidly evolving technologies. i want to be clear, this is not an anti- technology policy. there are many beneficial uses of technology that we would not want to prevent the city from engaging in or using, or acquiring. license plate leaders -- readers are used to enforce in force red light camera laws. as many neighbors have reminded us via e-mail, security cameras can play a critical role in apprehending theft, violent

crime, in fact, that same information can be made available to public defenders to ensure no one is wrongfully commit -- convicted of crimes. where we get into trouble, though, is where these technologies are used in ways that are inconsistent with that positive intent. when personal information of innocent members of the public is shared with third parties in ways that would make anyone uncomfortable. when marginalized groups, whether because of the color of their skin, their religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity are tracked, harassed, subject of violence. if you take even a cursory look at historical uses of surveillance technology, it is often these marginalized groups, even back in the sixties, artists and political dissidents who were disproportionately subject to the abuses of surveillance. there's also the much more mundane, but insidious impact of abuses of this technology, which

will make people feel uncomfortable about moving around in public. with what i believe is right to a modicum of anonymity. of not feeling like you are constantly being watched, recorded, and tracked. the impact on society of this type of constant surveillance was a subject of a brilliant piece which was part of the impetus for this legislation in the new york times by a chinese author called feeling safe in the surveillance -- surveillance state. for me, personally i think of this as the difference between wanting safe and secure communities on the one hand, and not wanting a surveillance state on the other, in this legislation attempts to find and achieve that violent -- balance. when i started office almost 20 years ago, i had a high degree of scepticism around technologies that i have realized are important, security cameras, or surveillance cameras , depending and what you call them.

today, yesterday i was advocating for additional cameras in chinatown, but they should be subject to that transparency and use policies. this is not about preventing technology, but is about preventing one technology, and i will get to that in a second. this is about saying, we can have security without being a security state. we can have good policing without being a police state, and part of that is building trust with the community based on good community implementation and not on big brother technology. i will tell you the general public actually wants this type of oversight. the voters of san francisco said as much last november when 70% of voters approved opposition be , the privacy first policy in san francisco, instead of policies to guide us as we regulate to protect personal information of san francisco residents. a recent poll by the aclu

revealed 75% of voters statewide and in the area support a public debate and a vote before any technology is obtained in government. so why a ban on the use of facial recognition technology? i think we are all aware of this , facial recognition technology actually misidentified 28 members of the united states congress. there are implicit biases in the algorithms employed in this technology which experts have now determined misidentified people of color and women at a disproportionately high rate. even if the technology is ultimately perfected, facial recognition technology is uniquely dangerous and

oppressive. unlike other technologies, we cannot hide our faces or change what we look like. this technology, even when it is accurate, is being used around the world for mass surveillance of minority groups work this this is happening in western china. there have been charges that this legislation has been rushed as i said, it has been subject to more hearings and more amendments than most pieces of legislation around here. it has been the subject of a lot of press, and again, we listened and made many amendments. before i talk about some additional amendments, i want to thank president yee and supervisor stefani, and a number of department heads for this last batch of amendments, seven of them that i have handed out to all of you and the city

attorney. i just wanted to thank first and foremost the american civil liberties union of northern california, and the folks that secured justice who were instrumental in advancing these policies here, as well as the bay area. i really want to thank my staff who did all of the heavy lifting for her work. i thank you are all in receipt of the letters of support and advocacy for this legislation that include the asian law caucus, asian law alliance, central legality, coalition on homelessness, council on american islamic relations, color of change, data for black lives, electronic frontier foundation, freedom of the press foundation, greenlining institute, harvey milk lgbtq democratic, indivisible s.f.,

national center on lesbian rights, the media alliance, the lawyers committee, san francisco d.s.a., the san francisco public defender ratios to -- racial justice community, san francisco department -- department club. i want to thank them for their support and advocacy. i wanted to acknowledge all of those organizations that have been supportive of the legislation. i would like to speak to the seven amendments. the first one at page 6, lines four through seven. that was a suggestion of supervisor yee that refines the existing language around the definition of what is a protected class. the second amendment is a nonsubstantive reference to a subsection. the third amendment is to extend

the time for compliance from 120 days to 180 days which was a request from supervisor stefani and police chief bill scott. the fourth amendment -- amendment at supervisor stefani and the p.d.'s request allows departments to continue use of surveillance technology pending board of supervisors consideration of a surveillance technology policy. amendment five, at the request of the committee on information technology will now have discretion to extend the deadline for compliance in a 90 day increments as opposed to the clerk of the board. amendment number 6 changes the date from a generally 15th to february 15th of each year to give more time for public posting of policies and reports and the final amendment, amendment seven, which was the

request of the police department was the extended deadline to file circumstance reports from 45 days to 60 days. i would like to remove those amendments and thank my cosponsors and rules committee, and i am prepared to answer any questions that my colleagues may have. >> thank you. supervisor stefani? >> thank you. i want to start out by thinking supervisor peskin for bringing this forward. i want to say it is important to have a policy conversation around the dangers of facial recognition balanced with any public safety concerns. supervisor peskin did mention that we are not the first, we are actually the seventh and each county has done things a little bit differently, for instance in santa clara, they didn't do a full out ban on facial recognition, but required public oversight of all surveillance. each county has tackled this program -- problem a little bit differently. obviously the abuse of

surveillance should be dealt with, especially when it harms marginalized communities, and it is not used for its intended use , which is to keep the public safe. i do want to thank supervisor peskin and his legislative aide who are working with us on the amendments at supervisor peskin mentioned that i will not go into. i do have some remaining questions. the latest amendments that came out as committee don't answer all my concerns. if i can take a moment, i don't know to whom i should address these, and i will ask the question, and maybe we can go from there, but i do have some questions around the implementation and i would like to start with the city attorney 's office, and i want to make sure i understand the legislation that all departments have 180 days to submit how much -- how they currently use surveillance technology and develop a policy for that

technology. and then is that a different policy for each technology at each department? for example, we have shots which is an important technology at the police department, license plate leaders, would there be a different technology for -- policy for each technology? >> the requirement to submit a technology policy for the departments that are using -- currently using technology, and also applies to any department that, in the future, will be seeking funding or approval, budget approval or contracting, that was seeking budget approval or seeking to contract to purchase new surveillance technology. in response to your second question about whether departments must submit a

proposed policy for each type of technology, the answer is no." department can submit an omnibus policy that covers all the technology that the department uses or they could submit piecemeal policies for each type of technologies that uses. >> if i may, for the president to supervisor stefani, part of the rationale, and this was actually a suggestion of the city administrator, of using the committee on information technology is so there can be some standardization within and across departments, so maybe there are technologies that have different use policies by the nature of those individual technologies. some data you may want to store for a year, and other data you may want to store for 90 days.

that might apply differently, but the notion of giving it to them was not only that you had a number of subject matter experts , but there could be some standardization across and within departments. >> that leads to my other question in terms of drafting these policies, since they really are the subject matter experts. -- experts. >> the ordinance doesn't mandate that process specifically. the departments must submit to them and they ultimately approve the policies to the board. it is possible, and i think the ordinance leaves open the possibility that they could adopt a general template and provide it to the department, and then the departments could use it to build their own policy which they then submit for them to submit to the board.

>> to be have any idea about how many policies that we will have to create for the outstanding technology. >> my office hasn't determined how many departments are using surveillance technology or intend to. >> do they have that information >> i would defer to supervisor peskin on that. >> the or answer is, we don't know. that is precisely why this legislation is important. this will require every department to tell us in the public what they've got. we do not know. >> if they have an existing contract with technology that is in use right now, with a draft a policy around that, and what if that policy was not approved, but we are in a contract? >> if department is currently using technology, they have to draw -- have to draft a policy.

the policy have to -- has to go to them and come up to the board under the amendment does supervisor peskin has proposed today, if the board does not act on the proposed surveillance policy, the department can continue to use their surveillance technology. if the board adopts a surveillance policy that prohibits the department from using this particular technology , then the department will have to stop using that technology. >> okay. when i asked the question about how many policies we will have to create an supervisor peskin answer that they don't know, that is exactly what we are trying to get i am really wondering if we need more staff to advise us and develop initial policies with regard to the physical impact of this, if that has been considered. >> that is not a question that i can answer, and the budget

analyst, when the ordinance was initially introduced, they determined that it did not have physical impact and require referral to a physical committee >> i don't know if president yee , if the police department his here, but i do have one concern with regard to the workload at the police department. again, as supervisor peskin mentioned, we don't know. we are trying to find out. i'm wondering whether or not, given the fact we are still not at our 1994 numbers, if there is any police officers that we will have to pull off patrols to help implement this order. >> is anyone here from the police department? >> i will say that. that is precisely the reason we projected them into this was to reduce the strata burden across departments. >> would you like to come up and say any additional comments?

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the commander of the police department investigation bureau. to answer your question, supervisor, we estimate it will take somewhere between two and four full-time employees to assist us in any of the contracts, the reviews, the process over the next year and beyond. that should answer your question >> okay. , thank you, one last question with a guard too many mobile. in terms of the technology, they are using, and again as supervisor peskin said, we don't know, and it is precisely why one of the reasons is whether or not it will limit meaning mobile ability to keep riders and operators safe. >> is anyone from munimobile here? m.t.a.?

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the chief security officer for sfmta. >> whether or not this potentially limit munimobile's ability to keep technologies and writers and operators safe. whether or not you have done that evaluation or whether or not you know. >> if the board does not approve the policy that we create and we have to shut down the thousands of cameras on our munimobile buses, then it will create an unsafe environment not only for the patrons, but also the operators. it all depends if the policy that would come up with is improved by the board. >> thank you. >> the thrust of this legislation is not about getting rid of technology. it is about knowing and departments knowing, and the public knowing how that technology is used. i would imagine that when the

m.t.a. goes on the policy goes to the board and they say, we store the information for 90 days, we share it with the police department, the public defender's office, we will approve that policy. if they say, for instance, we also sell it to third-party vendors, i would imagine we would not be okay with that, or if they say that they share it with the federal government, we might not be okay with that. so this is attempting to revoke that conversation and to make departments actually have these policies so they are not casual things, and 170 violates that policy, at least we know that, i will make up an example, that i.r.s. agent who broke the law when he released somebody's tax returns, or when the data was shared in a way that was an

aggregation of the use policy. if you don't have a use policy, then nobody is breaking any rules. i think that is the conversation we want to have. of course, we will have security cameras on our buses, we will still have body worn cameras on cops, we will still have license plate readers on our buses, but we will all know what we thought >> supervisor brown? >> thank you i don't know if this is the city attorney question through the president or is it supervisor peskin who can answer this, but when i am looking at the third-party sharing, does this legislation affect our ability to share data with the state or federal entities, particularly law enforcement, and i know you spoke a little bit to this, but i just wanted to get a little bit more detail on that. >> there is nothing in the

legislation that prevents that. now we may, as a matter of policy, want to do that in the course of reviewing these policies, but there is nothing, the legislation is silent on that matter. >> and there is no agreement with the state and federal government? do we have anything like that? >> deputy is it -- deputy city attorney. the ordinance does not address what department can do with information that those departments receive through their use of surveillance technology. it doesn't restrict them from sharing with state or federal governments or entering into agreements for the city to share its information with a federal agency. as supervisor peskin said, that policy decision will be made when the board ultimately considers each department's

surveillance technology policy ordinance. the ordinance does restrict city departments' ability to use information from technology that is given to them by third parties in some ways, in order to enter into an agreement for the third-party government or otherwise to receive, to regularly receive information from surveillance technology, a department must first have a surveillance technology approved for this work. >> thank you. >> thank you. through the chair to the deputy city attorney, can you talk a little bit more -- because the way i understood the response from m.t.a. was a little different from the way i heard you say it. if we have not approve something , they continue to use their existing policies until we have approval. i just want to us understand the

affirmative versus the negative. >> i think part of the confusion may be that supervisor peskin has proposed an amendment today that shifts that process a little bit. under supervisor -- >> which amendment. >> it is amendment number 4. >> as initially introduced, the ordinance would have prohibited departments from using existing surveillance technology if the board did not asked to approve their policy proposal by a certain date. >> that was their previous? >> right. under supervisor peskin's proposed amendment, if a department currently has surveillance technology, but up

until a month from now when this ordinance becomes effective, the department may continue to keep and use that surveillance technology until the board back -- asked to adopt a surveillance policy and then -- >> i just wanted to clarify, because i understood the response from the m.t.a., they have an existing system, they have an existing policy and they will be asked like every other department, to submit a new policy, at which time we will -- but up until that time, they continue to use their existing technology. is that right? >> they continue to use existing technology that they possess at the time that the ordinance becomes effective. six months from now, if they want to purchase a new piece of technology, they will need an approved policy before that. >> okay. i wanted to ask was sponsored to

speak a little bit because of my experience with the m.o.u. between the police department and the school district when it came to an interpretation of circumstances. i would just like you to talk a little bit about that and your interpretation of what that means. >> it is a provision in the ordinance that allows the use during a circumstance which means an emergency involving imminent danger or death or serious physical injury to any person that requires the immediate use of surveillance technology or the information it provides. for instance, or public utilities commission, if there is a fire in the upcountry, and they want to use drones, which they don't have, that would fit the definition of a circumstance they could use that for the duration of that period of time.

>> i appreciate that. >> i do think it was an important point made by supervisor stefani, as well as president e. in terms of the amendments you offered and you accepted. i appreciate that. i think the right balance is to understand this will require more work on behalf of all the individuals involved, but it is important to bring back to life. i think when you are on the end, or come from a community that has historically been one that is called out or let's say, identified as some that can be an imminent threat depending on the biases of the people that

have that technology, or have the technology to make that definition, i think it is important that we set a strong message that with all of the changes in the technology that we might not even understand today, what it is important that policy brings light to that, well the same time, balancing the need for public safety. we have seen the positive impacts in our own community, and i think this strikes the right balance to allow that to continue, but it the at the same time, understanding how that this technology could be abused and targeted towards specific communities. so i appreciate that, and i will be supporting this ordinance today. >> thank you. >> thank you. i think it is a very important ordinance. i think about the erosion and privacy that we have all experienced through technology and technological developments over the last 20 or 30 years. the presumptions and assumptions

that our grandparents would have had about their privacy rights and what what we experience today and our ability to affect -- protect our own information and protect ourselves from corporate and public interest. it is dramatically different. and i think one of the tasks of the 21st century is to be for governments to restore some of the lost privacy that has gone by the wayside but through technological development. i commend supervisor peskin for tackling what is difficult, what may be a challenge for the city to get its hands on, but i think absolutely it is the right thing to do. i also think that in terms of our willingness to engage with folks to -- folks to engage in significant changes in this, i think these changes might shift the balance and it will require

chasing after some of these departments over the next few years to get real information out of them about what their technologies are, and really get those policies established. i do think those are thoughtful changes, and i'm grateful for them, and i'm looking forward to voting for this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. i will make a comment before a call on supervisor stefani again i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this forward it is only fair that we know what city departments do with this technology. wasn't that long ago that we were asking emerging we were asking emerging companies, what do you do with this information? i do not think it is any different. i think we will have that standard for the public and i

think we as a government entity should also adhere to those standards of being transparent about how we use these things. i for one, and when i read the original legislation, the general vision of what it is trying to do, i totally agree with in terms of saying, okay, we have existing, we don't know what to do with it right now exactly, we don't know who has what, and in the future, if there are new types of technology that people want to use or departments want to use, then we should have the right, the public has the right to know what we do with this information you are not necessarily weakening the usage.

you're basically telling people what you were doing. i would consider a cosponsor and i'm glad i did. this is something that we need to do. i will be supporting the amendments. thank you for including these amendments. some of the amendments that we brought up came from the community who had concerns, and i'm glad we are able to address those concerns. supervisor stefani? >> thank you print. i'm definitely convinced that the surveillance should not be abused in any way. i think the amendments a supervisor peskin was willing to agree to definitely moves me closer to possibly supporting this legislation. i'm not yet convinced. i still have some outstanding questions about whether or not we can use information that will keep the public safe in a way that is making me comfortable enough to vote for this at this

point. i worry about politicizing these decisions in a way that may not be seen now, but could be in the future. this is not undermined. what i think it is a very well-intentioned piece of information by supervisor peskin , who i consider to be extremely wise and i think that this is a situation where we could show people in san francisco that we could respectfully disagree with one another. i will not be supporting this today. thank you. >> okay. colleagues, i think we have a motion to amend the ordinance by supervisor peskin, is there a second? seconded by supervisor fewer. >> i have an eighth amendment that i failed to make in subsection h. at page 12, lines 15 talked us 17. >> say that again, please.

>> subsection h. at page 12, lines 15 to 17, to add that nothing shall restrict a department's use of surveillance technology involving city employees, contractors, and volunteers. that was done at the behest of the department of human resources. >> okay. we have eight amendments that have been presented. there is a motion by supervisor peskin. is this still okay? are you seconding this? all right. without -- do you want roll call or are there any objections to the amendments? no objections to the amendments. the motion to amend this has passed. colleagues, on this ordinance as amended, can we have roll call, please? >> supervisor mar... [roll call]

>> there is one know with supervisor stefani in the descent. >> thank you, colleagues. >> this ordinance is passed on first reading. madame clerk, can we go to our 2:30 p.m. item? >> yes, we have supervisor peskin, supervisor haney, and supervisor mandelman. >> what is the item? >> the 2:30 p.m. commendation period. >> thank you. supervisor peskin? >> thank you. today i have the pleasure of honoring my good friend and neighbor and affordable housing

champion, gail gilman, who is retiring for the executive director at the supportive housing nonprofit c.a.c. community housing partnership. after 17 years of service to said organization. i have known gail for over a decade, not just in her role at c.h.p., but as a north beach dennison and the arts and culture scene there with her husband, larry, that we all affectionately called mr. z-letter, and they are inextricably entwined at 12 adler place. the museum, the bar, she is an incredible hostess who comes up with platters of antipasto and plans and barbecue every year in celebration of richard simmons' birthday. i think at the last unionized

local two bar in the city and county of san francisco outside of the hotel. i also saw what she was able to do with c.h.p. when she took over from our now head of the department of homelessness, jeff kaczynski, where she double the agency's capacity, and turned it into an affordable housing powerhouse. i remember when she took on bringing stave -- safe and stable housing to wraparound services to district two, which was no easy task with the rehab of the king edward the second hotel, and at that time, having supportive housing for youth in the marina neighborhood was quite controversial and contentious, but gail did not back down. she and her co- champion, cheryl adams, took on the task of educating the community about the transformative power of affordable housing. i think it was a defining moment

for the city because here we are , ten years later, where every neighborhood is looking how to emulate what happened at king edward the second. gail has also been at the forefront of an evolving movement to create step up housing and a continual -- continuum of care in our pipeline so residents living in some of our most deeply affordable housing can eventually move into more stable housing options and have a chance for permanent housing with more amenities. she didn't just transform the formal housing conversations city wide. she really transforms c.h.p. under her leadership, staff were given free reign to really invest in community organizing around equity and workforce issues, whether it was supervisor kim's fair chance act , or free city college, she strove to make the connection between equity and housing and jobs and education. she has never been shy about saying that her staff were

empowered to organize around social justice issues, and encourage her tendons to engage in all levels of civic and social advocacy because it was there lives that were being impacted, and many of those people are in here today. she was later appointed to the building inspection commission, which she, after reading every page of the public trust doctrine and the port code, parlayed into a position in our port commission where she ably represents the entire city and county and also district three of the northeastern waterfront. [please stand by]