photography. >> a lot of people come into my classes and they don't feel like they really are creative and through the process of working and showing them and giving them some tips and ideas. >> this is kind of the best kept secret. you should come on and take a class. we have orientations on most saturdays. this is a really wonderful location and is the real jewel to the community. >> ready to develop your photography skills? the harvey milk photo center focuses on adult classes. and saturday workshops expose youth and adults to photography classes.

. >> chairman: good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, september 20th, 2021. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by vice chair rafael mandelman and connie chan. your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board of supervisors legislative chamber committee meeting room is closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda both channel 26, 78, 99, and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen.

public comment ask available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. you will be muted but in listening mode only. dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment via e-mail to the rules committee clerk at victoryoung@sfgov.org. it will be forwarded to the supervisors as part of the official file. that completes my initial comments. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i am still waiting on some last minute amendments to item number one, so can we please

call item number two out of order. >> clerk: item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code march 31st as the annual date for registering fees at auto mated point of sales stations used for commercial purposes, retroactively eliminating fees billed by the tax collector on or after january 1st, 2019, through fees otherwise due prior to march 31st, 2025, for each business with taxi meter devices, refunding eliminated fees paid to the city, and any penalties paid on such fees and updating administrative fees to conform with the state of california's annual device administrative fees schedule. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, this item does two things. it cleans up the administrative code provision as it relates to how the city by and through our

weights and measures function the county in this case, mr. creed morgan with the department of public health administers their job in verifying that various devices from gas pumps to jewelry scales to taxi meters are accurate and so this does a little bit of clean-up, but more importantly as set forth in the long title read by mr. young, it puts a pause on these fees for taxi meter devices and i'll explain a little bit more why in a second, but i want to thank kate torren and her crew from the sfmta taxi shop for their

work and allowing me to sponsor for these measures as well as the treasurer tax collector who's represented today by amanda freed for their collective work that's going to bring some, i think, fairness, a level playing field and relief to our by leaguered taxi community. ms. torren is not available today as court proceedings over our taxi dime scheme are going on in the civil division across the street, but she's represented by philip crana from the sfmta. with that, i will give a very brief synopsis beforehanding it over to the aforementioned folks which is that the t.n.c.

industry lyft and uber are not yet frankly measurable. their devices which are these little things are not measurable by the state and local government as to accuracy and therefore are not being charged fees at this time and it seems to be that their counter parts not be charged for them either. in addition, the city has been trying to get everybody on a march 31st payment regimen and this ordinance does that along with some other nonsubstantive

clean-ups. and good morning amanda. >> good morning, supervisor peskin. thank you for that synopsis. you always make my job easier. california pays a fee for each measuring device. we bill and collect these fees at the department of public health. and so in an attempt to even the playing field and to be and it's actually retroactive for any fees billed after january 1st, 2019, and would last until march 31st, 2025. the city would refund any so

they can be included on the unified licensed bill. this has made it a lot easier because of all the deferrells from the board and the mayor during covid. we've pushed. please remember to pay that and the penalties were for a day late and then go up the longer you fail to pay.

the ordinance also requires the scheduled fee. i know i'm joined today by creed morgan and a cloog from the sfmta and this legislation was an effort by our team offices so i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> chairman: i also neglected to acknowledge lee hefner with my office. mr. morgan, i did not know you were but it sounds like you are running a tight shop. >> i think this is a great opportunity. i think it's important legislation that will go forward and kind of make a

level playing field. >> thank you,, mr. morgan. is there anything left for you to say? >> on behalf of sfmta, i'd like to thank you, you supervisor peskin for your leadership getting to this point. i'd also like to thank ms. free on this important piece of legislation. >> chairman: all right. are there questions or comments from committee members. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. you know, i think identify been i've been in city government for some time now and i would like to be a co-sponsor of the legislation.

>> chairman: thank you. all right. why don't we go to public comment list and i've got to go to the meeting list. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. chair. to look at fines and fees and the variants and some of which make a lot of sense and some don't make sense at all. and i think this is very good legislation and i would also like to be added aas a co-sponsor. >> chairman: wow. we're off to a good week. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001.

the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have three callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> i have been watching city government meetings for 20 years and i think this discussion about taxi meters is boring. city hall meetings have really jumped lately. i don't care about this weights and measures stuff. this has nothing to do with peoples' lives. i don't know weights and measures and taxi meters and

supplementals and r.s.b.s. i'm sick of this stuff. i don't really even care. and, by the way, mandelman looks like an ugly rat. >> chairman: you were doing good and by the way this does save individual taxi drivers a significant amount of money on an annual basis. speaker number two. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you now. >> good morning. david pillpell. i pride myself on being up to date on the more obscure elements of our city government, but this was a little wrinkle that i did not know about so i too learned something. thanks as well to ms. freed, ms. torren, and mr. morgan and

their staff for clearing this up. my only question or concern if you might direct it to staff although this is an ordinance that amends the code because there are fees that are waived currently and retroactively that would have some physical impact and i did not see what that physical impact is. i don't oppose it, i just was wondering what that was and if you can bring that forth. otherwise, thank you very much. great work. >> chairman: thank you. i thought i was going to be able to add you as a co-sponsor this morning but with that last question, i can't add you as a co-sponsor. budget analyst deemed this to not have physical impact. next speaker, please. >> linda chapman. good start to the week i would say indeed. i'm here for a different item,

but i want to thank supervisor peskin and co-sponsors for putting this forward to protect the taxi industry. i have to say, one, as a person who is now an older person and also disabled, the taxis are critical to us. yesterday, i actually had to call one to rescue me from the wind tunnels over at van ness around pine and california and the hotel that's caused. also, i live in a neighborhood in knob will where more than two thirds of the households did not have any kind of vehicle at all and we depend on taxis a lot. you know, i believe that years ago, the city did a real disservice to the taxi industry by putting these medallions that you keep hearing about and promoting uber and lyft. i don't think i have to tell

you about the kinds of harms they caused in general to their workers. think of the poor taxi drivers. you know, i'll just mention also, that as you know, those medallions were important investments for conservative investors, city workers and so fords and taxi drivers. my sister's mother-in-law inherited two medallions from her husband and her son drove the cabs and i used to listen at coalition with san francisco neighborhoods to the woman whom you would know and came and represented the cab drivers. whatever else you can do. whatever more you can do, please do and that concludes my remarks. >> chairman: thank you, ms. chapman. are there any other members of the public here for item number two for public comment? >> clerk: there are no other members of the public waiting for public comment at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed.

in all seriousness, as to the second speaker's question about fiscal impact in so far as this is a fee for a service and that service is not being provided. there is no fiscal impact because there's no work being done to measure the accuracy of the device during this brief period as we figured out and the state figures out how to measure t.n.c. devices which is going to take a little while and just so that that speaker knows the amount of money collected on an annual base i've been informed is less than $200,000 per end. with that, i would like to make motion to send this item to the full board with the positive recommendation of the co-sponsors of supervisor mandelman and chan. on that, a roll call vote,

please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: mr. clerk, in so far as the third item is easy and quick. why don't we get it out of the way, could you please read item number three. >> clerk: yes. item number three is a motion reappointing supervisor melgar term ending september 23rd, 2023, to the association of bay area government executive board regional planning committee. >> chairman: is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. give me one moment. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191

then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. excuse me. you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. i believe we have two members of the public in line to speak on this item. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> howdy there. this is gort or binson and i'm a conservative and a concerned republican here in san francisco. i hold the appointment. she is a [inaudible] go back to mexico. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> you can hear me okay? >> chairman: yes, we can, mr. pillpell. >> it is.

david pillpell. so on this item, i have no opposition to the proposed reappointment. i am concerned that i think there's a typo here somehow. it is the association of bay area governments. they used to be have a general assembly. they certainly have an executive board. i believe this is the appointment to the regional planning committee. so i think both in the short title and the long title, the reference to the executive board should probably be struck and this is simply the reappointment to the a.b.a.g. regional planning committee. probably not a reference to the executive board. i believe that's a separate appointment unless i'm confused. but the executive board and the regional planning committee i believe are different entities.

thanks very much. >> chairman: i would refer that to legal council. are there any other members of the public for this item, number three? >> clerk: we are double checking. i believe that completes the speakers for this item of public commentors. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. madam deputy city attorney as to the last speaker's comment on the title of this matter in any advice. >> i apologize. i didn't hear the suggested revision. could you repeat it? >> chairman: mr. clerk, you want to unmute the caller, second caller so he can repeat it. >> clerk: i can go ahead and

provide a summary. mr. pillpell believes that the executive board is not should be deleted from this title as it is not the correct title. it should be association of bay area governments regional planning committee and he believes the executive board is a different body. >> chairman: sounds correct. >> it seems like something we might want to confirm before amending to reflect that. i have no idea whether or not they're different bodies. >> chairman: i'll tell you what, why don't we send this item to the full board with recommendation and mr. clerk and madam deputy city attorney, if the title needs to be changed at the full board, we can do that accordingly then. >> okay. >> chairman: all right. on the motion to send the item as is before us a -- supervisor

mandelman, something you want to say? >> supervisor mandelman: i was going to say, i think it may be a committee of the executive board even though members -- people can serve who are not on the executive board, so it is worth double checking before we make the change. >> chairman: all right. we'll get to the bottom of that. the workings of a.b.a.g. and on the motion to present an item with the possibility of amending this after due copious research, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] the motion is approved without opposition. >> chairman: all right.

why don't we circle back around to our first and last item, item number one, please. >> clerk: yes. item number one is an ordinance amending the campaign and government kungt code to expand definition of interested party to include city contractors and persons seeking influence city officers and combes and to prohibit appointed department heads, commissioners, and designated combes from sliting behested payments from interested parties. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i don't know if supervisor haney has joined us or not. you'll recall that last week, we had a good and robust conversation about this and i raised a number of issues and in the intervening week have now gotten the amendments resulting from that conversation that have so

everybody will have plenty of time to which is a pretty fundamental which is that i don't think there's any reason why any city official whether they are appointed department heads or elected officials like ourselves should be able to, in essence, solicit or otherwise shake down parties who have pending contracts before those officials whether it's an elected official or an appointed official or who have a financial interest in proceedings before us or these department heads. i mean, this is not a radical concept. this is i think pretty basic anti-corruption work.

and what it boils down to is who is an interested party and the way it's defined which i want to broaden a little bit is that has to be somebody with business in front of that department head, in front of this board of supervisors, so it's not anybody in the world. i mean, if you are spending your time as the head of the library department asking third parties to contribute to friends of the library, 99.9% of the universe is still available to you, but you can't go and solicit the folks who are installing your metal detectors that just seems like common sense and frankly, this is behavior that is rarely ever

engaged in and this notion that has circulated and somehow not receive funds because elected officials won't raise money for them is demonstrably false. so long as we can distinguish between interested and noninterested parties and we can do fundraising without the corrupting influence of these interested parties i mean, this seems wrong. i can't believe that it hasn't been illegal forever, but parentally muhammad nuru has shown us we had to create a law

by way of example if you look at the behested payments over the last decade, you'll see a lot of them are being raised from ecology and you'd be nuts not to consider that recology charge friday some of those while they manage to overcharge rate payers by one$00 million over half a decade. so a have a series of amendments which i promised that i would introduce that i received from an attorney's office. regardless, theses amendments will require a one-week continuance. but back to the simple premise,

no public official should be allowed to solicit or, in essence, when you're in the middle of an rs.b. process or granted a contract, it feels like and smells like a shake down from parties who have a clear interest in influencing our behavior. that's just wrong. this is per se corruption and i don't think we should allow it at all period. so the amendments i'm introducing today should, one, as mr. ford said last week on behalf of the suggestion of the ethics commission suggest elected officials including the board of supervisors and the mayor to the same prohibition on behesting payments from interested parties as other city officials. by the way, this eliminates the filing requirement for officials which is less paper work for those of us who have previously engaged in this.

you no longer will engage in it so you won't have to fill out any forms. i've included registered contact lobbyists as an interested party. i have lengthened the scope of the what constitutes an interested party from six-month black-out period for solicitation of city contractors following the term nation of a contract. so anyway. take a look at it. let's discuss it next week. i'm happy to try to answer any questions you might have at this time, but we'll continue this item for a week. i see that supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman are on the roster. supervisor chan.

>> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. and i do want to quickly address some of the nonprofits and i really do agree that this legislation is one key element to good and clean government this really essentially stopped behind the scenes pay and play culture that the entire city government really should not be having from elected officials to city department heads, but i want to clarify through our deputy city attorney anne pearson around the issues where fundraises specifically about public appeal and how that's a key element to supporting nonprofit and fundraising. >> deputy city attorney anne

pearson. is your question for me to tell you a little bit more about what public appeals are in so far as they're an exception to this? >> chairman: yeah. and i actually do want to say there is actual -- there's a reference in the measure that references a specific code section and it's important to understand that communications such as public testimony in front of the board of supervisors are not included in that, so if somebody comes and testifies for behalf of an item, that does not in any way count and i don't have, i can find the code section here, but communications that involve only routine requests for information such as publicly requested documents are made while attending general information or are made to the press and involves an action that's solely ministerial or a

written public comment are exceptions. i'm sorry, madam deputy city attorney, but i meant to mention that in my comments. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor chan, were you also wondering about the public appeal because that is a term that's used in the legislation and that's also defined in the public code. when the request is made by a number of means. by television. radio, billboard. through a public message like social media. the distribution of a single e-mail to 200 or more recipients or made in a speech to a group of 20 or more individuals.

so that's the definition of a public appeal. >> supervisor chan: and that is an exception in this legislation; correct? >> right. >> supervisor chan: all right. thank you, through the chair peskin. that's all i really want to clarify for especially some of the concerns expressed through the nonprofits. i hope that eases some of the anxieties. again, i really believe this is a good piece of legislation for clean and good government. take away some of the pay to play culture and the behind the scene and it's good that we extend it to the i electricitied official. and thank you, chair peskin. >> chairman: thank you.

supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. chair. i guess i look forward to try to understand the amendments over the next week as well. if the chair could explain why. i understand this legislation is not banning the behested payments in its entirety. it's banning from elected parties. so why would elected officials no longer be filing the behested payment filings? >> chairman: so i do want to thank patrick ford from ethics and as well as supervisor haney and his staff and deputy city attorney andrew schenn who pivoted quickly in the last week. some of the behested payments are requirements of the state

law and they are then additional behested payment requirements up to $5,000 under local law, but i am personally happen to file behested payment stuff from noninterested parties at any dollar point pursuant to local and state law, but why don't i defer to mr. ford or the city attorney for an answer to your question as it relates to noninterested parties. obviously, there would be no filing requirement for interested parties because those would be prohibited. i mean, if you were filing because you were soliciting a behested payment from interested party, you would be filing to show that you had done an illegal action. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i think i'm just under the impression that i'm supposed to filing these behested payment filings whenever i'm whether they're urgent or not, maybe

i've been misinterpreting the rules. >> chairman: why don't we get a little advice from ethics or the city attorney. mr. ford, are you available? i've always got to scroll down to see who's in this meeting. i don't see -- deputy city attorney pearson, would you like to weigh in as to what the requirements are for behested payment files by elected officials from noninterested parties. >> my understanding is that this -- the amendments that are introduced today reflect a policy choice to remove the reporting requirements in favor of a prohibition on making requests to interested parties. >> chairman: okay.

so my understanding in the conversations in the intervening week with deputy city attorney schenn is that by prohibiting elected officials from soliciting behested payments from interested parties that obviated the sections 3.0 filing requirements, but if for elected officials, but if what you are saying is that it is a policy choice that section 3.610 can stay for solicitations from noninterested parties, i would be more than happy to keep that. this is a good conversation to have as we proceed towards next week's vote, but we can figure that out. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: and, it may be that there are also -- maybe it's just cleaner.

there are state behested payment requirements and maybe the thought was rely on those and don't -- i'm not sure, but i was curious about that. i'm also curious. and i don't know but does this get into -- so imagine the scenario of a seawall or a large infrastructure project where there is a bond measure being put before the voters and are the funds being raised for that behested payments? >> chairman: good question, supervisor mandelman. mr. ford. >> yeah. thank you, chair peskin. i probably want to understand a little more on what the facts are. >> supervisor mandelman: in the scenario, there's a campaign to save the seawall and we have to raise, you know, many millions of dollars for a

campaign to do that and so the elected officials all run around and go to officials who might have a dream in their future, they might have some seawall money to be made and see if anybody will put some money in for this ballot measure. are those behested payments? >> payments to a political committee would not be considered a behested payment under this ordinance. no. >> supervisor mandelman: and, so this really is a situation of that scenario, but with respect to the extra things you would like to get those people to pay for for the departments. >> correct. yeah. if they're not considered gifts or political contributions, if they are payments to an organization for charitable or governmental purposes, that would be considered a behested payment. >> supervisor mandelman: and

what is the friends exception? >> so i have not seen the latest draft amendment, so i can't say exactly what that says. i've seen i think the previous version, so i'm a little out of date. so i think i'll wait until later to see that and talk about that. >> chairman: and, mr. ford, just so that you know, this just happened only a few minutes ago, but you do have a copy of the latest version. >> okay. great. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. i'm sure i'll have more questions for folks going forward over the week. but thank you and thanks for trying to get this right and it's important work. so thanks again. >> through the chair, if i can answer supervisor mandelman's earlier question about behested payment reporting. i didn't quite have a link yet. but to your question about how that works, as chair peskin said, state law requires elected officials to file behested payment report for any behested payment over $5,000.

it doesn't extinguish between interested parties or noninterested parties and that will remain the same, we can't change that. the local behested payment reports only apply if it's an interested party. those would fall in, what this legislation would do is you cannot engage in that behavior anymore. but the state will always be there. >> chairman: yay. thank you, mr. ford. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i mean, i think because of recently run for election, i do believe with our campaign law and code is that if you're running for office or if it's a candidate controlled committee that you are not allowed to actually ask for contribution for contractors or lobbyists. the contractors actually again also have actually pending or

intent to submit bids six months prior to the individual to take office and running for office. so i believe that there is already a prohibition for electives or just candidates running for office asking for contribution from contractors. i do think that, you know, again, i mean full disclosure, i just filed a series of behest payments for our autumn moon festival and that is both meeting at the local and state requirements. however, i do believe that majority of those do not include interested parties. it's just the fact that i personally whether they are qualifying the definition of interested party or not, full disclosure and go ahead and do

that, but, in essence, i think prohibiting that all together really helps to just put away some of those -- be it perception and reality to pay to play. so i just wanted to add my comments to that and thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. why don't we open this item number one up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item and, of course, it will be before us again a week from today, september 27th. mr. clerk. >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate

you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. we currently have six callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is charles head. i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we are very much in favor of everything that you are trying to do regarding to this item. personally, back in 2014, i was a member of the civil grand jury which was interested in behested payments and the civil grand jury's report that is published online at sfcivil grandjuryreports. our report was ethics in the city comments, practice, or pretense. grand jury rules prohibits me from saying anything that's not

published in that report. that report became a basis for changes which are still with us today. and is very much worth reading. but, again, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and i personally am very much in favor of the work of this committee in this area and look forward to next week's iteration and good luck. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, my name is francisco de costa. this matter has come before the sunshine task force, the ethics commission, and the controller's office, then to the city attorney and now we

see there are some method interests that are corrupt who want to circumvent and not go before the board of supervisors. but your board of supervisors haven't followed your own standards. how many times have people come before you after spending more than $10 million and then ya'll have made mention that this should have come before you, but it did not come before you and giving a slap on the hands. today, this city is known for its corruption at every

>> chair mar: good morning. welcome to the public safety and neighborhood services meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. thank you, mr. chair. the record will reflect that the committee members are participating to the same extent as if they were present

in the meeting room. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. either channel 26, 78, or 99 as well as sfgovtv.org are streaming the public comment number across the stream at this time. the opportunity to speak during public comment period will be available by phone by calling 415-655-0001. the meeting i.d. for today's meeting is 2495-033-8403. following that, you should press pound twice. when your item of interest

comes up, press star, three to enter the queue and begin speaking when the system prompts you that your line has been unmuted. you can send your written comments to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, room 204, san francisco, california, 94102. of course, all of this information appears on the front page of every agenda for your consultation, and matters acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda for september 25, 2021, unless otherwise stated. >> chair mar: thank you so

much, mr. clerk. could you please call item 1. >> clerk: item 1 is a hearing to consider that the transfer of a type 48 on sale general public premises liquor license to presidio cab tail corporation, doing business as presidio cocktail corp. at 907 post street, district 6, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco. >> chair mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i'd like to welcome officer salmonson from the a.d.u. unit

to make this presentation. officer salmonson? >> there are three letters of protest. i have no letters of support. they are in plat 542, which is considered a high crime area, and in census area 142, which is a high saturation area. as of september 16, i was able to speak to greg lingren over the telephone, and at that time, he was in agreement to those two conditions. >> chair mar: thank you for

that report, officer salmonson. you mentioned there were three letters of protest. i wonder if you could summarize what the concerns raised were? >> yes. unfortunately, an alcohol beverage licensing control reps, they save those, so i don't know what they say, but i know around what they touch on. it's usually high saturation and noise complaints, but yeah, i can't provide the full information on those protests. >> chair mar: thank you, officer salmonson, and i think we have a -- the opportunity -- or the representative here. mr. [inaudible], do you want to speak to this? >> yes. well, good morning. i believe that any concern from

a neighbor is valid. i guess the only way to speak to that would be our history. my business partner, greg lingren, and myself, we opened our first business in 1998, and we're still going strong. we have no track record of violations, and we have good relations with our neighbors and san francisco police department, so i think, you know, of course, it's always a bit alarming to have a place that serves alcohol pop up next

to your residence. we're both in our 50s, and we've never had loud night club-type bars. we've just had quiet little bars, and that's what we hope to have on post street, and if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor mar: no, thank you. thank you, mr. [inaudible], and as officer salmonson said, you're agreeable to the conditions recommended by the a.l.u.? >> oh, yes, absolutely. of course. >> chair mar: okay. colleagues, do you have any questions or comments? why don't we go to public comment on this item?

>> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we're working with calina mendoza from the department of technology. for those of you watching on sfgovtv or elsewhere, call in by following the instructions on your screen. that would be by calling 415-655-0001, and enter the meeting i.d., which is 2495-033-8403, and pound, pound, then press star, three to enter the queue to speak. [inaudible].

>> clerk: caller, are you still there? thank you for your comments. miss mendoza, could you please connect us to the next caller? >> clerk: there are no more -- >> operator: there are no more callers in queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair mar: thank you. supervisor haney, i don't know if you have any comments. this is in your district. >> supervisor haney: no comments. i'm supportive. >> chair mar: colleagues, i'd recommend that we find that this resolution finds that the public necessarily will be served and that this item be recommended to the board of supervisors. >> clerk: i'll prepare a

recommendation that this resolution finds that the public necessity will be served and that this item be recommended to the board of supervisors. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair mar: thank you. this matter will be sent to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you, mr. [inaudible] and officer salmonson. >> thank you. >> chair mar: clerk, please call item 2. >> clerk: agenda item 2 is a resolution accepting the report of the city administrator and designating the department of public health, fire department, health service system, city attorney, treasurer tax collector, and department of technology as health care components under the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 pursuant to administrative code chapter 22-h.

members of the public who wish to make public comment call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2495-033-8403. following that, press pound and pound again, then press star, three to enter the queue to speak. chair mar? >> chair mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i'd like to welcome bill barnes from the city administrator's office to present this item? >> thank you, chair mar. for the benefit of the public, hipaa is a federal law established in 1996 that limits protected federal health information and how groups treat that information. groups like the city of san francisco can declare as

certain hipaa components covered and others would not be. we were able to determine three departments that would be able to do that, and that's the fire department, department of public health, and health service system and that's why treasurer tax collector, city attorney, and department of technology are included as health care service components.

the board of supervisors has asked to validate the list. upon passage of this resolution, we would work with the departments to establish policies. many of them already have great hipaa policies, but this would just codify and make sure it's clearly stated, and then, there's the review every three years or so where we come back if any agencies or divisions of the city violate these services, we can come back and update the lists. with that, and in the interests of time, we would request your support of this resolution. >> chair mar: thank you so much, mr. barnes, for this presentation and for your work on this. i just have a few questions. is there the first time that we're designating the -- is it

six departments as health care components? >> that's correct. so prior to the passage of chapter 22-h, there was no process in the city to designate certain agencies as health care components and be a hybrid entity.

the department of health and fire system has long been knowledgeable of hipaa and implementing them, but the sort of things required under hipaa is protected health information. so it's your name, contact information, results of your medical procedures. those records are extremely confidential and have to be treated as such. there are training and compliance components for these departments that have the hipaa standards, and we have to make

sure that everything is being properly managed. >> chair mar: thank you. and then just kind of one last question, looking ahead, did you say there would be a three-year updating or revisiting of this? >> correct. functions in the city are prone to change, and it's possible that another city agency might be offering services that are covered. if that would happen, we would come back to the board immediately, but having our regular review, we're able to look at everything and just make sure we're correct. for the benefit of the public and the committee, the city attorney remained a public consultant, and the city attorney advised on which departments should be included.

the city administrator concurs with that advice. we would ask all city departments to include their activities, and to the extent that something is included, it would be included. >> chair mar: thank you for this advice, and thank you to the city attorney, as well. colleagues, do you have any questions? why don't we go to public comment. mr. clerk? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. again, we're working with calina mendoza in the queue. for those watching on sfgovtv or elsewhere, please call in following the instructions displaying on your screen. call 415-655-0001. dial the meeting i.d. of 2495-033-8403. press pound twice and then

star, three to enter the queue to speak. please wait until you receive a prompt that your line has been unmuted, and that will be your signal to begin your comments. miss mendoza, could you please connect us to our first caller. >> hello. [inaudible]. >> clerk: speaker still there? >> operator: there are no more callers in the queue. >> chair mar: great. public comment is now closed. i'd like to move that we recommend this to the full board of supervisors. >> clerk: on the motion that this item is recommended to the full board of supervisors -- [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, there are

three ayes. >> chair mar: thank you very much, and this item will be recommended to the full board with a positive recommendation. mr. clerk, please call item 3. >> clerk: item 3 is an ordinance amending the police code to allow cannabis business permit applicants to qualify as equity incubators by supporting equity applicants prior to cannabis business permit issuance and not only after permit issuance. second, specifically that equity incubators must provide support to equity applicants with which the equity incubators and their owners have no ownership or profit sharing arrangement in order to qualify as equity incubators.

third, give first priority for permit application processing to equity applicants that are sole proprietors or whose business is 100% owned by a combination of owners that are verified equity applicants, give second processing priority to holders of temporary cannabis business permits that commit to sharing use of their facilities with one or more equity applicants and add to the sixth processing prior applicants that preefg held temporary cannabis permits, in addition to those that currently hold such permits. fourth, prohibit transfers of more than a 50% ownership interesting in a cannabis business for five years after the office of cannabis acknowledges receipt of an application for a cannabis business permit for that cannabis business, incompetent stead of ten years from the date of permit issuance. fifth, exempt transfers of ownership in a cannabis business triggered by an

owner's death from transfer limits that would otherwise apply. sixth, require that a cannabis business seeking a permit amendment tied to reduction in the combined ownership interest of all verified equity applicants in that cannabis business below 20% meet substantial equity commitments as a cushion of amending the permit. seventh, establish that an applicants withdrawal of a cannabis business permit application, unlike the abandonment of an application, will not bar a subsequent application from that applicant from qualifying for priority processing, and eighth, authorize the director of the office of cannabis at any point after an applicant has submitted a cannabis business permit application, to require an applicant to submit needed information or documentation within 45 days, and declare an application abandoned if the applicant fails to comply with

the deadline without showing good cause for the failure, affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqa act, and making necessary findings. mr. chair? >> chair mar: thank you, mr. clerk. i want to thank mayor breed for bringing this item forward. chair rodriguez? >> thank you, mr. chair and thank you, mr. carroll, for that detailed explanation. good morning, chair mar, supervisor haney, and supervisor stefani. the item would make a number of amendments to the police code. i've split this up into three

sections just for easy processing for today. thank you for pointing this out, chair mar. this has been a collaboration of a year-plus with the city, with all of you, with the mayor's office and the community to make sure that we get this right, very thoughtful and thought out thoroughly. we do have several slides, so i'm just going to walk-through them. next slide, please. so here with the three sections that we're going to talk about. with the first one, enacting the mayor's initiative to prioritize equity, there are three components that i'll talk to. the second is formalizing equity legacy policies, also known as equity preservation, which is especially important at this time as we transition into cannabis 3.0 at this time

in about year four. so the mayor's initiative to prioritize equity is willing to give applicants that are sole proprietors first priority in permit processing, and as you know, we already prioritize equity. this would be within that category further prioritizing equity. the second one is giving temporary cannabis permittees that commit to shared manufacturing with one or more equity applicants second priority in permitting processing. what does this mean? essentially akin to a shared kitchen. it's labor intensive to get a facility up and running. we'd like to create more pathways to allow temporary permit holders that do have these facilities to incubate and support our equity community by allowing one or

more equity applicants to work with them. and if they do that, in exchange, we would prioritize processing their permit. the third allows equity applicants to allow equity support during build out process. the way that this currently stands, an individual who is being incubated by an outside partner cannot receive that support until after they receive their permit. that's after all the money and resources were needed. it's certainly helpful, but it makes more sense that it happens sooner, during the build out phase, and for clarity, the build out phase couples after the planning process, so an individual has gone through and received land use approval from the planning

department. they will have been issued a job part from d.p.i., and they're ready to build out their business, so at this point, they've probably been navigating the process for over a year, in some cases, almost two. next slide, please. this is equity preservation, and this kind of falls under its own umbrella. currently, ownership applicants can have their ownership diluted, in other words, sold without equity action. after all the work that the city has done to standup not only this office but this program, we wanted to make sure that this didn't happen; that instead, there was a way to continue to support equity in perpetuity. there is a chance that equity businesses will exist for a moment in time, be bought out, and