department. the department of police accountability data tells a similar story. last year, of all the complaints alleged, 42.5% of those complaints involved neglect of duty by officers including failure to write incidents reports and/or investigate crimes. the san francisco police department's own clearance rate also paints another troubling picture that the department is not doing the jobs that it claims to. clearance rates have declined. clearance rates were down for robberies by 14%. for burglaries by nine%, for car theft by almost 16%, and for larceny by 36%. furthermore, stuff i've witnessed further officers tell constituents that there is no point in investigating or arresting perpetrators of crime because the district attorney will not prosecute.

this is patently false. the district attorney brought charges in 66% of cases that's the sfpd presented to him. is absolutely unacceptable for police officers to stop doing their jobs because they don't like the way another department is doing its job. last year, the board of supervisors and the mayor increased sfpd business i 28 million for a total budget of $683 million. at the same time, the board of supervisors and emeriti office created 10 straight response teams to address homelessness and people living with mental illness and drug addiction to more effectively address a poverty and public health crisis. despite the increase in budget and decrease in work responsibilities, they are seeking additional funds from the board of supervisors. i have for one, i'm hard-pressed

to give more money to a department when there are so many reports of officers simply refusing to do their jobs. i look forward to hearing chief scott's response to this letter of inquiry, and specifically what he is doing about the reports of officers failing to do their jobs and the record low clearance rates in the department. secondly, colleagues, i am asking, one second. i am asking the bla to conduct a report on the effect of the mayor's 2192 year pilot program to retain sfusd teachers in the most underserved communities. in august 2019, mayor brief sought to retain and attract experienced teachers by providing an additional $3,000

in the first year and an additional $2,500 in the year after that two teachers in hard to staff schools. nearly all of the san francisco high potential schools or part of this program were in the bayview, mission, and southeastern neighborhoods. we have heard firsthand from teachers who received this stipend and principles of the schools that were part of the pilot program that have made a tremendous difference in retaining teachers and preventing educator turnover. however, the pilot program has ended. the cost-of-living in san francisco, thank you, continues to rise and teaching during the pandemic has only made teachers work harder. teacher retention was an issue in 2019 and is a bigger issue now. i'm asking the bla to report on how the mere's pilot -- how the mayor's stipend project is being administered and its effectiveness for consideration in the upcoming budget year.

and then finally, colleagues, a few weeks ago we introduced an ordinance regulating street vending, an activity that has been a major problem in the mission district for many years. today we are introducing a substantive piece of legislation that we have worked on with the mayor and her staff, and specifically i.v. -- and i believe that i feel comfortable supporting that i feel will help street vendors and the beleaguered neighborhoods that they are selling in like the mission. in short, the legislation requires vendors to obtain a permit for being able to set up sales on the street or in any public right-of-way. when selling new items or

certain more expensive items like tools, phones, computers, bike parts that are stolen from cards and garages across the city, proof of ownership will be required before receiving a permit. when selling used goods like tennis shoes, clothes, no proof of ownership will be required. dpw will be the agency responsible for enforcing the law. the police will not be involved. there are no criminal ramifications for selling goods without a permit. however, if a vendor sells without a permit, dpw can confiscate goods and administer fines that can be reduced or waived based on inability to pay. street vending has become a massive problem in the mission. sidewalks are crowded, and passable, and customers cannot reach the family-run businesses that pay enormous fees to sell their goods and services and are suffering even more because of the street vending.

merchants are upset. they are losing customers during an already difficult covid time. streets are littered with trash and debris left by the vendors. on saturday i couldn't even exit the bus because of the massive umbrellas and blankets lining the streets. the chaos on the streets is unsafe and unsustainable and untenable. a few years ago, my office tried to fix this problem on mission by creating -- lang which mac -- we closed down the street parallel to mission street, provided tables and monitors and allowed vendors to have a safe and orderly place to sell their goods. unfortunately, the intervention failed after close to a year of trying. we ended up serving vendors from out of town who found the spot and came here to sell their goods. we did not contain the vending on the streets surrounding the area. and because it was my office staffing the program every

weekend, it was just completely unsustainable. this time around, the mayor and her staff are working with us on a properly resourced pilot program to run these in the mission and for the properly permitted street vendors to allow them to safely sell their goods in an orderly way. i have tried every strategy you can possibly think of to deal with this problem in the mission, and the bottom line is we have got to permit the vendors in order to get control of the situation. i have not seen the mission look so bad in a really long time. the vendors and the residents are irate, and frankly, they deserve to be irate. it is untenable and we must do something about it. i want to thank the mayor and her staff for working with our

office, for being so amenable to making changes, to the original ideas, to striking the right balance of giving people who are living in poverty away to make extra money without allowing chaos in the streets. colleagues, the rest i submit. >> thank you supervisor ronen. >> thank you, colleagues. i don't have anything to submit. i just want to put something on the record regarding the rise and spread of graffiti in the city. i know we have an ordinance on the books that allows those businesses and others to not have to clean up the graffiti during our emergency order. i think this has gone on for two years. when it was introduced was the right piece of legislation. i have gotten a barrage in our office over the last few months of people complaining about the rise of graffiti and tagging. i think it is time to rethink.

i know supervisor mandelman's office and supervisor ronen's office and supervisor peskin's office is really thinking about this. it probably is time to look at ending the grace period because it is really out of control. drive through any commercial corridor in the city and you will see tagging that has just exploded. i know the citizens of san francisco are calling for us to do everything we can to clean this up. i look forward to working with my colleagues and the department to really accelerate removing the grace period and asking people to take responsibility for what we are seeing out on the streets. thank you, madam clerk. the rest i submit. >> thank you. supervisor stefani? we will return to supervisor stefani and move on to supervisor walton. >> thank you. thank you so much, madam clerk.

colleagues, today i'm introducing legislation imposing interim zoning controls for 18 months to require a conditional use authorization and specific findings for proposed parcel delivery service uses pending the consideration of other legislation. this legislation is critical to the san francisco community, as we have seen some companies try to come into cities and neighborhoods and increase pollution and traffic, bringing along jobs that pay below industry standard wages and, in some cases, facilities with serious health and safety concerns. this legislation is meant to give each parcel delivery service project a more thorough review. we want to make sure that these facilities will benefit those living and working in san francisco before making a decision.

as the president of the board of supervisors, i had no idea that the office of economic and workforce development had signed an m.o.u. with a company in district 10, until right before it was reported in the news. members of the surrounding community, labor, and other stakeholders were also kept in the dark this is incredibly frustrating when companies attempt to slide their projects under the radar with little to no accountability to the community. large companies must come to the community and discuss what they plan to do. they must have conversations with folks who live and work in the community, and at least the office of economic and workforce development could have reached out to our office to have a courtesy conversation. as a community we must be allowed to decide if we want

these types of facilities and businesses, and not just to be told that they are moving into our neighborhoods. we are always willing to work with companies that make commitments to abide by environmental regulations and are good employers. however, companies that are looking to come to san francisco with a track record that is questionable at best should be vetted by an extensive community process. you are seeing this happen all over the bay area and southern california, and on the east coast where communities are coming together and saying they want to participate in discussions and planning when their environment will be completely affected by big business. some communities have passed on these facilities, while others have reached agreements, but only after thorough reviews and strong commitments, which is important to fit the community's needs. i am grateful to the san

francisco southeast allianz, united food and commercial workers, and the teamsters for working together with our team on this. i can speak on behalf -- i can't speak -- i can only speak on behalf of san francisco, but i wouldn't be surprised if other communities and other major metropolitan areas develop similar legislation to fit their needs. i would also like to thank the deputy city attorney victoria wong for drafting this. thank you for giving feedback during the planning process, and my chief of staff for working with everyone on this. thank you so much. the rest i submit. >> thank you, mr. president. supervisor chan? submit? thank you. supervisor stefani? okay. mr. president, seeing no names on the roster. that concludes the introduction of new business.

>> thank you. let's go to public comment. >> the board of supervisors welcomes general public comment. the best practice is to use your touch phone. you will be in sync to listen to the proceeding and to provide your comment throughout the meeting. the telephone number is streaming on your screen. when you hear the prompt, enter the meeting id. press the pound symbol twice. you will know you have joined the meeting as a listener once you hear the discussion, but your line will be muted. when you're ready to get into the queue to provide your comment, that's when you should press star three. when it is your turn, listen carefully for the prompt that you have been on muted and begin speaking your comments. during general public comment, you may speak to the approval of the january 11th, 2020 board meeting minutes. you make speak to the closed session which is item 35 regarding existing legislation.

the public was also able to comment on this motion scheduled -- scheduling disclosed session on february 1st, 2022. items on the latter side of the agenda, 36 through 38, the matters for adoption without committee reference and the matters that are not on the agenda today, that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board of supervisors. all other content will have had its public comment requirement fulfilled. the board of supervisors will accept your written correspondence by u.s. mail using the address... or you may send us an e-mail by using the e-mail address... as stated earlier, and partnership with the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs, we do have interpreters present with us.

i would like to give them an opportunity to once again introduce themselves, the service they provide, and the access information to this remote meeting in their language. we will start with bremen for filipino, arturo for spanish and agnes for chinese. welcome. [speaking foreign language ] [speaking foreign language ]

[speaking foreign language ]

>> thank you. we appreciate your consistency and being with us. and for the service you provide to the community. mr. atkins, we are setting the timer for three minutes. help me welcome our first caller, please. >> hello. >> thank you, we can hear you. i wanted to thank president walton, as well as supervisor chan and supervisor preston and peskin for the resolution file

on the commemoration of the 80th anniversary. the day of remembrance on february 19th. it is virtual this year on saturday at 5:00 pm. [ indiscernible ] i commend you for the resolution. and i thank you for introducing it. >> thank you for your comments and for joining us this evening. mr. atkins, i understand we have 13 callers who are listening and one caller, possibly two who are in the queue.

mr. atkins, please help me welcome our next caller. >> good afternoon, supervisors, president walton. i am the new executive director of the task force following in the large footsteps of steve nakata show. i want to thank supervisor preston and supervisor chan for their leadership for co-authoring and commemorating the 80th anniversary of the signing of the executive order 9066. i hope you will plan to join us on our day of remembrance, this saturday, february 19th from 5:30 pm in a virtual event. my father was incarcerated in arizona for no crime other than

his race. he was ripped from the customs of uc berkeley and excited -- and sent to an assembly center and eventually to a desert prison camp. what the resolution does is recognizes the city and county of san francisco and how they were complicit in this most egregious violation of constitutional rights of japanese americans. i hope you will all support the resolution and i look forward to partnering with you in terms of how we can heal the community around this. thank you so much. >> thank you. all right, mr. atkins. can we hear from another caller? welcome. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes. >> yes, my name is radley.

i am calling to urge you to support the resolution urging the federal government to release leonard peltier and grant clemency after his years of unjust confinement as a political prisoner. this conviction is an egregious miscarriage of justice and it is a violation of the due process rights. he is an indigenous human rights defender and he needs support for being released. he also has just recently contracted covid which affects his help -- health and well-being. i urge you to support the february 24th, 2022 day of solidarity for him. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. let's hear from another caller.

>> meghan's mom was pregnant with her -- born in the western addition, she was at sunset nursery school. she wonders which district will she die in, and which supervisor might memorialize her, remembering her story in some way. she hopes to remember making was denied housing countless of times over decades of dutiful efforts, culminating in the team teach you denial tonight -- despite her insiders socializing -- [ indiscernible ] -- she had disabilities in chemical sensitivities and was taking ada rights accommodations. they were warned to not mention ada rights again as the s.f. homeless industry retaliates against the homeless to request them. by not having them. no one ever told her how it could represent her in a claim

for discrimination against her. for many years, unnecessary and suffering abuse followed while statutes of limitations expired. [ indiscernible ] she was denied equity in her never ending pursuit of safe and affordable homes in her own home town. she weeps every board of supervisors meeting where the unhoused are never represented. she was last thrown out on the street during the rising delta variant. though immunocompromised in matt haney's district as the sheriff joked about her not dying that night, inappropriately touching her from behind. please remember meghan. please remember meghan.

>> thank you for your comments. mr. atkins, do we have another caller in the queue? we have 13 listening and there's about two in the queue ready to make comment. if you are one of the 13, please press star three. let's welcome our next caller. [ indiscernible ] welcome. if you turn down your phone -- turned on your television we will be in sync. >> should i just start speaking now? >> yes, sir. >> hi. my name is paulo sake. i would like to speak today on item -- on items regarding the

resolution commemorating the 80h anniversary of the signing of the executive order 9066. and today -- today's resolution is long overdue. eight years ago, the japanese american community needed the support of our city leaders here in san francisco to help protect our civil and constitutional rights, rather than lend a hand, the police raided our homes, arrested our leaders, and assisted the f.b.i. and military and the forced evacuation of japanese americans from san francisco. i only wish those generations that were incarcerated were here today to hear that the city is finally recognizing its role

that it played in the evacuation and incarceration of japanese americans during world war ii. unfortunately, there's probably only two or three% of those living today. it made its holiday recognition in 1987. the state did in 2020, and now, finally, 80 years later, the city has taken the opportunity to recognize its role. it is long overdue. at some point in time there needs to be a larger discussion about the city's role, its impact, and effect upon our community. it is not just the war. the studio completely evicted... >> thank you for your comments. please forgive my interruption

of your comments. we are setting the timer for two minutes this evening. mr. atkins? do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> supervisors, tonight i am calling to lay attention at the foot of our police department. i want to take note of their lawless behavior as our district attorney has emphasized in managing to use a rape case victim to prosecute them for petty theft. what i would really love to see in our city is more respect for the victims, but moreover for us to take note of how important it is to have an independent district attorney that is a separate check on this unlawful

authority. as we see coming before us shortly, we have propositions relating for funding for the police department and extension to the tenderloin funding and both of those things come for us soon and the expansions of the police that have continued to behave in a lawless way, whether it is refusing to comply with supervisor peskin's surveillance measures, or refusing to comply with the strict attorney or refusing to comply with the court system or refusing to comply with the constitution. you can see they have no interest in complying with the law. i urge you to bring our police into a law-abiding and respecting relationship with the

authority and the city as they clearly are unwilling to do, unable to do themselves. i urge you into an oversight role with this out of line department. >> thank you for your comments. mr. atkins, let's hear from another caller, please. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes, welcome. >> thank you. supervisors, i would like to encourage you, maybe tomorrow, when you get into your office, go take a walk out to city hall. it will probably be a nice day. passed the library. take a right down eighth street. just observe what your policies have brought upon this city. walked down to mission street and back up to ninth.

go sit in your office and if you can sit there for two minutes and really feel as though you are doing their jobs, my hat is off to you. i am so disgusted by the depths that this city has fallen to in the amount of money that to you, in my estimate, steal from taxpayers and distribute in the most absurd and unregulated ways, and then, you know, you have a three and a half hour meeting before you get any feedback from citizens. you can continue whistling in the dark, but you -- you probably have destroyed the most beautiful city in the world keep

on whistling in the wind, but i am very frustrated. >> thank you for your comments. mr. atkins, do we have another caller in the queue? >> can you hear me now? >> welcome. >> hi. i actually have a comment related to item 35. the closed session. is that appropriate now or will there be a separate opportunity? >> this is your opportunity. >> rock and roll. thank you. related to item 35, i wanted to speak on three related topics. one is interconnection, two is intervening facilities and the third is metering.

i believe that all three are related to billing and safety and that there should be a proportional approach to all of them. that is to say, a single connection, whether it is a streetlight or, you know, a small appliance, that could be metered, perhaps should be, but maybe not. and if the worst that it could do, if a short-circuit in that device or a service might, you know, put out one person next door, then that doesn't need as much load protection as the general hospital or some major downtown office building, which has a huge load and could have a much more disproportionate effect on neighbouring customers.

in some way, there should be a proportional approach to intervening facilities, the greater load needs more protection, and that is 30 seconds, right? >> correct. >> i've got it. all right. and on metered accounts where they could total up the entire load used by the city, subtract the load that is billed to customers, and what is left over, simply build the city. those are unmetered accounts. whether they are streetlights or somebody stealing 20 cents worth of power, it is a lot cheaper to do it that way then to -- >> thank you. apologies to cut you off. we are setting the timer for two minutes. all right. we have 13 callers who are listening and three who are in the queue ready to provide comment. if you are one of the 13 listening and you like to speak during general public comment, press star three now. let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> hello. >> welcome. >> hello? >> we can hear you. >> hi. i would like to bring, first, good afternoon and good evening to the members of the board. i would like to bring into view road works. i work in san francisco. i work from 7-3 in the morning. i know this and there has been a trend over the past years that the work that is done on the roadway in san francisco is being done through repeat hours. nineteenth avenue. one of the busiest streets in san francisco, lincoln way, fillmore, they are all being done during peak hours. 7:00 am in the morning, there are men blocking off the street during peak hours.

that lasts throughout the entire day. please, these are contracted workers. why do you think they are not doing these jobs at night when the road is empty? if they want to bid on these jobs, they should accept the fact that these jobs should be done at night. that is holding up traffic. disrupting traffic. you can't get anything done you can't get from one point to the next because of the word work being done. it is throughout the whole city. 7:00 am you are blocking off the streets to do what? one small portion? this is something the board should really look into. i know we have so much stuff going on in the city, but this is one way, this is one point that we can really cut down on. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. mr. atkins, let's hear from our next caller, please.

>> hello. i am a lawful member of the tribe. i am here to support and ask for you to adopt the resolution here to have them be released and to also look at the same resolution for all local tribal members within san francisco to be on the same resolution. we have so often been overlooked and been invisible. we are here today as native americans and we are striving as one another. we look at this day as american indians as american indian day in solidarity here. i support that. thank you for your time and for listening to my comments.

thank you. >> thank you for your comments. let's hear from our next caller, please. >> hello, board of supervisors. i would like to praise supervisor ronen for her initiative to submit a letter of inquiry to chief scott. i think we need to finally address the french laundry dead elephant in the room and that is made or breed. there is no way that chief scott would have unilaterally opted to not participate in the year's long establishment of an m.o.u. to look into sfpd excessive use of force cases. we know we can't be naïve.

we know that mayor breed was in the background offering chief scott her approval to throw a monkeywrench into police investigation. it seems that, unfortunately, these powerful black leaders in san francisco are actually subservient to the police union. i believe that both of these black leaders, which i initially praised, they are betraying the very members of their own community, of the black community. thank you for this time. i appreciate it. >> thank you for your comments. operations, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> hello. my name is alice and i am active with the japan town task force

but also a resident here in the japan town. i wanted to let the board of supervisors know that i support the resolution of the 80th anniversary of executive order 9066 recognizing that many, many japanese and japanese americans with this executive order were forced out of their homes and put into the relocation camps. san francisco board of supervisors at the time, and officials, supported this resolution. i think it is a great time right now as we celebrate the 80th anniversary commemoration that the board of supervisors of san francisco acknowledged the wrongdoing of this and support this resolution to apologize to the citizens of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments.

all right, mr. atkins? let's hear from our next caller in the queue. if you are one of the nine who are listening and you would like to provide general public comment, press star three now. otherwise we have just a handful of individuals. perhaps one or two that we might take this group to the end. welcome. >> hello. my name is kristi. i have lived in the mission for over 24 years. i have a very strong constitution for urban problems. the latest crisis has put me over the edge. i woke up in the middle of the night to a strange and loud crackling sound. i saw my neighbor's building engulfed in flames. three fires in an instant. they were evident after the san francisco fire department put out the flames. the crisis is fires. garbage, tense, whatever you want to call them, people are

consistently starting fires throughout the city. there are some great statistics. fires rose by 26% in san francisco last year. does that sound crazy? fires increase by over 50% in the mission, castro, and upper market in 2020. the fire department data shows the rise in fires was mainly termed by garbage fires. it is a broad label use by the fire department including lots of different scenarios. means a fires happen outdoors and involve trash. spokesperson says the frontline firefighters took themselves to encampments. their impact should not be underestimated. any fire is dangerous. we have such a condensed city. records indicate an estimated 80 million in combined property and content damage throughout this year. they were caused by people in and around tense for people

cooking and keeping warm. accidents happen, but they happen a lot more frequently. this is not a progressive agenda. you can chalk up some of it to covid, but not at a 50% increase. pundits say we need to how's everyone. not everyone is ready for their own apartment. we need people who can support themselves and provide institutions for those who can't. we can't leave people with drug problems and mental illnesses on the sidewalk to hurt themselves. >> thank you for your comments. please accept my apologies for interrupting you. we are setting the timer for two minutes per person. mr. atkins, do we have another caller in the queue? >> thank you. my name is antonio gonzalez. i am the director for aim west in san francisco. i am speaking on behalf of the tribal community, and also to

speak on item 37, the resolution for leonard peltier. he is an internationally known political prisoner who's release has been called for by scores of congressional representatives, the dalai lama, nelson mandela, bishop desmond tutu, and hundreds of luminaries, as well as many millions of people around the world.

he is suffering his health and needs to go home. the national congress of american indians representing the center across the united states -- [ indiscernible ] thank you very much. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you for your comments this evening. all right. mr. atkins, do we have another caller in the queue, please? >> there are no further colors in the queue. >> thank you kindly. mr. president? >> thank you so much, madam clerk. seeing no other speakers on the roster, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, we will come back to item 35 after the for adoption without committee reference agenda. and before we go to the for

adoption without committee reference agenda, let's go back to item number 10. >> item 10 is a resolution to approve a fifth amendment to an emergency agreement between the human services agency and 231 market street owner lp for the city's continued use of 459 hotel rooms and associated services located at the hout -- at the hotel to increase the contract amount by 24.4 million for a total not to exceed 78.9 million and a potential total term through december 1st, 2022 and to authorize the amendments or modifications to the contract that do not materially increase the obligations or liabilities to the city. >> thank you so much. we are going to continue this item to march 1st, 2022. we will hear from the deputy city attorney.

>> the agreement before you is an amendment to an agreement initially entered into under one of the mayor's emergency orders related to the covid emergency. the mayor has recently issued a new order authorizing amendments to the hotel contract to extend potentially through august 31st 2022, but no further under that emergency authority. unless the board adopts a subsequent ordinance off -- authorizing additional amendments for longer terms. the contract before you today has a term that ends on december 1st 2022. it is outside of the authority or the term allowed by the mayor's order. today we are asking the board to continue this item to its next meeting and at the next meeting, the department will come to you with a department to secure approval and the board if you approve that amendment we will

continue this item until the march 22 meeting made by supervisor musk -- peskin, and super -- and seconded by supervisor chan. on the motion to continue? >> on the motion to continue item 10 to march 1st, 2022... [ roll call ] there are 10 ayes. >> thank you. motion to continue carried

unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 36 through 38. >> items 38 -- 36 through 38 were introduced for adoption without committee reference. a unanimous vote is required for unanimous reading. alternatively, a member may require any resolution on first reading to go to committee. >> thank you so much. supervisor ronen? thirty-seven, thank you so much. supervisor chan? thirty-six. thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor peskin? >> thirty-eight. >> thank you. >> madam clerk, please call item 36. >> thirty-six is a resolution to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the signing of executive order 9066 and to declare february 19th, 2022 as a day of remembrance recognizing the need for increased public

awareness of the events surrounding the incarceration of americans of japanese ancestry during world war ii and to recognize the role of the city and county of san francisco actively engaged in, one of the most blatant and civil constitutional wrongs in our country's history. >> thank you. supervisor chan? >> thank you, president walton. colleagues, i have some minor grammatical errors. my office has sent these to you already. i will make the motion to make this nonsubstantive amendments to the resolution. before i do so, though, i would like to thank the japan town and japanese american community for coming together, working with my office, and supervisor dean preston's office on this painful, but necessary reminder to commemorate executive order 9066. this executive order was signed

on february 19th, 1942 by president franklin roosevelt. the order authorize the forced evacuation and removal of over 120,000 japanese americans residing on the west coast. majority of whom were u.s. citizens. our country has tried to hide the history of its concentration camps with very little u.s. history classes teaching the subject. and an attempt to physically will -- erase the campgrounds. sadly, san francisco, our beloved city, did play a part in the forest evacuation of japanese americans. our san francisco police department participated with the f.b.i. in reading the homes and businesses of japanese americans. the board of supervisors passed a resolution banning japanese americans and japanese immigrants from the employment by the city and county of san francisco. with that action, the board of supervisors expressed their

support of the implementation of the civilian exclusion orders and the removal of japanese americans pick today, with the increase of asian hate attacks, the board of supervisors must recognize its role in participation in the forced evacuation and begin the conversation around restitution of the civil and economic losses the japanese-american community suffered. majority of japanese americans lost their homes, businesses, and belongings as they could only take what they could carry.

as a district five supervisor,'s district includes japan town, dean preston and his team have been very thoughtful and respectful to the community and listening to their concerns, and really creating a space. it is very important for all of us to remember. often times we think we speak for them, on behalf of them, most importantly what we need to do now is create a space for our community to speak for themselves. with that. i look forward to continuing to work collaboratively. >> supervisor preston? >> thank you, president walton.

i really want to start by thanking, a supervisor chan has, members of our japan town community in district five, in particular paul oh, sake and dianne, and also many other members of the community who have worked with our office and worked with supervisor chan and called in and sent letters of support by this resolution. it shared those stories and often their personal stories and their families stories. the stories are what motivate this resolution that is before us today. i appreciate all of the community's advocacy and partnership on this resolution and the broader efforts here. i want to thank supervisor chan

and her legislative aide for their leadership on this and for all the work that they have put in to this effort that is before the board. it has really been a pleasure working so closely with them on this and i want to recognize the work of my chief of staff, kyle, for his work. not just on the resolution with supervisor chan's office, but also on an ongoing basis with the japan town community. i will try not to repeat we too much from what supervisor chan has said so eloquently. i will associate myself with her remarks. i think there is a point that supervisor chan touched on. you really deserved the emphasis and i think we recognize, and through this resolution, that before us to take responsibility

as a city for the atrocities and violations of civil rights and liberties that occurred during internment and this period in our nation's history, but i think it is critical that we acknowledge that this body, the san francisco board of supervisors, of supervisor chan noted, played a direct role in furthering that shameful effort. i was not aware before i took office of those direct efforts by the board of supervisors, as noted in the resolution and a supervisor chan has spoken to, all city government and law enforcement agencies assisted in the forced removal of people of japanese ancestry from san francisco, and the board of supervisors took the unconscionable step of passing a resolution banning japanese

americans and japanese immigrants from employment for the city and county and san francisco. these actions collectively have caused generational wounds and while i believe it is important and it is an important step symbolically to acknowledge the history, to declare the day of remembrance, as this resolution does, i think it is important that we also recognize, as this resolution does, that this is only a first step and that we really have a duty to turn our words into actions, to remedy past wrongs, challenge racism, and do everything possible to ensure the survival and future of our city's japan town and broader japanese american community and culture here in san francisco. i look forward to working with

our agencies and city partners with all of you, colleagues and community leaders to make that happen. i think it does. i am proud to cosponsor it. i want to express my thanks to the community and to supervisor chan and her staff for their leadership on this. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor preston. [ indiscernible ] thank you. supervisor ronen? >> please add me as a cosponsor. thank you so much. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor peskin? >> i want to associate myself with supervisors chan and preston and i am proud to be a cosponsor. it is a painful subject and i

also wanted to remind everybody that the subjects of that internment were first interned in horse stables at the racetrack. there is a small reminder and then we are taken by train to a piece of land north of delta, you caught -- utah called the topaz internment camp which is now a national historic sight and there is a museum of the internment in delta, utah, the topaz internment museum. if you are ever on highway 50 driving east of baker, nevada, go check it out. it is quite impressive hand moving, and is full of the histories of people who live here whose descendents continue to live here, and many of whom will return here, and some of whom who were born there. [please standby for captioner

switch]

made by supervisor chan and seconded by -- >> i have supervisor peskin and i believe we can take that same house same call so motion to amend passes without objection. and for item number 36, i don't see anyone else on the roster. so i believe we can take this amended item same house say call and without objection this amended resolution is supervisor ronen. >> and grant clemency after many years of unjust confinement and

as a political prisoner and declare february 24th, 2022, as a day of solidarity with leonard peltier. >> thank you, colleagues, leonard a member of the ashinobe dakota tribe that's been incarcerated since 1975 and is an internationally known political prisoner. he was convicted in the death of two f.b.i. agents after a 1975 shoot-out in south dakota between members of the american indian movement and the f.b.i. the two co de fend amounts were acquitted by self-defense and he was tried separately and falsified testimony and fabricated evidence. and example of these is the fact that the medical examiner had testified at his trial and never actually examined the bodies instead his testimony was based on notes from law enforcement and other non medical

professionals and even a former u.s. attorney for north dakota of ottawa james reynolds, who supervised the post trial sentencing and admitted the prosecution shaved a few corners and in a recent letter and reynolds wrote we could not provide leonard, we con prove learn odd personally committed any crime on the pine ridge reservation. leonard's release has been called for by many members of the congress and mandela and bishop desmond tutu as well as thousands of amnesty activists around the world and most recently, senator brian shads and senator patrick lehe, president pro tem joined these calls for learn order peltier

release and and diagnosed with covid-19 we can never give leonard back the years he has lost but we can give him a humane shot at recovery and ensure he can live his life free from incarceration. there will be a press conference at the theater in the mission to honor leonard peltier and hear the status of his health and declare february 24th as leonard peltier day. i hope it receives the full support of the board. i want to thank dr. jose cuer andal and the american indian cultural center for the work on this resolution. thank you. >> thank you so much.

supervisor ronen. >> i don't see anyone else on the roster. i believe we can take this item same house same call and with that objection, this resolution is adopted unanimously. and emergency inform meet the on going local emergency related to the sudden increase and last monday february 7th, we all received at 3:30 p.m. an e-mail from the clerk's office forwarding a letter from the acting interim head of public works and with regard to using

code section 6.60 regarding overdose prevention programs services at 444 sixth street and evoking or what seemed to me evoking the matter that is before us but i could not find any reference to what public works was doing at the location and didn't seem to be attached in the tockation and from section 660 which is approvals required for determination of emergency and does require a future approval by this board and does require certain documentation being submitted to the board and but i couldn't tell the work so i did, on that same day an hour later, send carla short an e-mail asking

about it. and i received, on the tenth, i guess that friday i am acknowledging receipt of your e-mail and i'm still gathering information but will respond soon so it's a week later, i'm just trying to figure out, it was done pursuant to this so does anybody know what is going on? >> was that a question to our colleagues? >> i mean, we're being asked. >> it's supplemental that triggered this so i can't, i mean, the letter that was attached doesn't really say what is happening at 444 or why we're using section 6.60 which is emergency repairs work in contract. what is the emergency work repairs or contract? >> madam clerk, do we have

anybody from the department of public works? >> we're checking right now to see if we have anyone on. i don't think anyone is. i do, i believe i've just been -- staff are so good they sent me a copy of the letter and if members would like us to send a copy to you we will send it to all of your boxes right now. >> president walton: tom, do you have a response to that? >> thank you, president walton. i just requested from the clerk if it's possible to send the link to the power in our office and he can speak to supervisor peskin's questions. >> he is awaiting the link? >> i'm sorry? >> president walton: he is await the link? >> he is, yes. >> we're sending him a link right now.

>> i tried to raise this through the appropriate channels and we're being asked to vote on the supplementally. >> thank you supervisor preston and i do believe i see andre's -- you are on mute. >> good evening, efforts and i missed the question supervisor peskin. >> thank you mr. power, through the president, last monday a week ago we received a letter from carla short, the acting director of public works invoking pursue apartment to pus emergency section 6.60 for row pairs work and contracts relating to 444 sixth street for overdose prevention services. it doesn't say what that work or

contract involves. i was asking what the work is and the estimated cost and the notification protocols pursuant to section 6.60 of admin code would be and give the emergency declaration and so that was the just of my question. >> and my understanding is that director short if reach out saying we would get back to you and wore trying to figure out specifically whether it even falls within the confines of this declaration and so that project is not proceeding at this point and we will come back if we proceed so if you have more information and going on and that effort is on hold at this point.

>> if for they said that i couldn't ask the questions today but any work in excess of $250,000, absent the emergency requires approval by the board, but it sounds like it's not going forward so thank you very much. >> thank you so much. thank you supervisor peskin. any other questions or concerns about item 38? same house same call and this motion is approved unanimously. wait a minute, we have to do a roll call. madam clerk, roll call on item number 38. never mind. other you.

we are now at our closed session, item number 35. >> item 35 is a closed session for the board of supervisors to convene today february 15th, 2022, for the purposes of conferring with or receiving advice from the city council regarding existing litigation in which the city is a petitioner and an adverse party. this item was scheduled pursuant to a motion approved on january 11th. 2022 and continued on february 1st, 2022. public comment is already been taken on this matter, mr. president. >> president walton: we will now

[roll call vote] >> clerk: there are 10 ayes. >> president walton: we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. madam clerk do we have imperative items? >> clerk: i have none to report. today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following beloved individuals on behalf of supervisor peskin, ronen chan, safai and preston for mr. king ji dang. >> president walton: do we have any further business. >> clerk: that conclude our

business. >> president walton: if we have accept in the face of discrimination, we accept the responsibility ourselves and allow those responsible to solve their conscious. by believing that they have our acceptance and concurrence. we should, therefore, protest openly everything that smacks of discrimination or slander. mary mccloud bethune. this meeting is adjourned.

>> hello every one. thank you so much for your patience. good morning i am san francisco mayor london breed with dr. colfax giving an update what is happening with omicron because we are anxious to know when is this going to start dying down? good things are starting to plateau. it doesn't mean we take our guard down. even though we are still seeing additional cases, even though our hospitalizations are very high, we have the capacity to

handle what is coming our way, we are starting to see just a number of plateaus and trends from other parts of the country afternoon world show the people ahead of us and the cases skyrocketing. we are paying very close attention. it seems like san francisco is behind all of that. we are following a very similar pattern to other cities across this country. if that is any indication plus with san francisco being 82% vaccinated it is really hopeful for the future and hopeful that we will continue to move forward. we will see some additional improvements as the days go on. i know it has been a very challenging couple of weeks over the holiday season. as we continue to say one of the most consistent things through

out the course of two year pandemic the light at the end of the tunnel is here. we may go through another tunnel but know there is hope and there is light. i am here just to also say because i know that many people are asking a lot of questions. what is going on with testing? what is going on with the tenderloin emergency plan? why are things not moving as quickly? many of us should understand the city and bureaucracy is challenging. keep in mind that we see these numbers of the omicron variant spike. we also see them spike with city employees. a lot of police officers, firefighters, muni drivers, department of public health workers and those at san francisco general are out with

omicron. we are going to continue to experience this challenge for some time. we ask for people to be very patient with us, to know we are doing our best, working to backfill those positions when they are out with over time and the number of other resources. these are the times we are living in. as a result we just have to adjust to our environment. to talk more specifically about where we are with omicron, what to expect for the future and you know the hopefulness when doctor colfax is smiling and excited and hopeful and giving an indication things are going to get better. i know that is what is going to happen. we get to come outside and play, right, dr. colfax? please welcome for an update on the covid-19 omicron variant and what is happening in san

francisco here is dr. grant colfax. >> good morning everybody. thank you, mayor breed for your leadership as we enter the third year of the pandemic. third year. we are seeing covid-19 cases drop relatively rapidly in the city. we can now say that we are on the beginning of the downward trajectory with regard to the surge. latest data showcases peaked on january 9 with seven day average of 2164 cases per day. it has steadily dropped each day since then to 1076 per day on january 12th. this is good news. it has been a rocky start to 2022. hang in there a little longer. the surge is not over yet. hospitalizations which trail the peak in cases will still

continue to go up. fortunately, for now we expect to meet capacity within the healthcare system to take care of people with covid and other healthcare needs in the hospitals. we are urging people to remain particularly vigilant for a little bit longer. cases are still very high. cases are still very high especially compared to prior surges. we all need to get well past this peak. look, i know that everybody is exhausted. let's give gratitude to front line staff who as the mayor said have been working over time to patch together coverage as colleagues become infected and have to stay home. many of them became infected, too. tonight bely, for the vast majority of our cases in the city, cases are mild because people were fully vaccinated with the first series and for

many people they were up-to-date on vaccinations with regard to boosters. at this point, it looks good with regard to making it through. we are likely to make it through the surge and come out in a much better place. it is important to emphasize with case rates so high what we see across the country, the state and locally we are in a far different place than a year ago with our prior surge. we are getting through omicron, the most transmissible yet. it is more transmissible than alpha and delta. we managed to keep hospitals, clinics and essential services open. most cases have been mild or asymptomatic especially for those up-to-date on vaccinations, especially for those who get the booster. we have proven covid doesn't have to upend our lives even if

we have to be vigilant, smart and flexible to adapt to what is needed when needed. as your public health department i want to stress that our goal is not to prevent every case of covid. omicron proved that is not possible. our goal is to prevent the worst outcomes, severe disease. hospitalizations and deaths. with regard to that, i want to ground ourselves in comparison to last year. last year we lost 165 san franciscans to covid in january of 2021. this month to date we have lost five. now we don't know what covid has in store for us, but we do have great defenses against this virus. vaccinations and boosters and i expect in the relatively near

future effective antiviral medication. we know how to layer defenses. during periods with high transmission when we must protect front line workers and vulnerable by masking, testing, improving ventilation. staying home when sick. omicron taught us we have vulnerabilities in the system of care. we need testing to be accessible, affordable and fast to truly use this tool together safely. we are working with our state and federal partners to make rapid over the counter tests easy to come by and requiring the healthcare system partners to step up and do their part with regard to testing as they have done with hospitalization. we anticipate new tools to become available soon such as retroviral medications to better protect people who are

especially vulnerable to severe disease. as we come out of onl omicron we will drop restrictions when and where they may being sense. we acknowledge that individuals have different level of comfort with the risk of covid and because of certain medical conditions. your risk assessment may vary. what you are willing to do with yourself and family may change depending on your risk assessment. individuals may want to adapt to their own risk and comfort level within the conditions stipulated under our health orders. we ask you to be tolerant and work together to make each other feel comfortable and supported. it is certainly possible we will deal with other variants in the future, hopefully, we will be

able to wait covid among the other infectious diseases we have to contend with by not letting them up end our lives. san francisco, thank you for all you have done and continue to do as a city and we will continue to get through this together. thank you. questions? >> i am confused. you are saying that the cases are beginning to fall rapidly downward. the surge is not over? >> well, the cases are still high. it depends if you depend surge as straight up. we are still in the surge. cases are higher than ever before. i just want to make sure that people understand that we are not out of the woods yet.

cases are still extremely high. they plateaued and are going down. they are at a high level. we are looking at data from other places where it had been ahead of us and it showed that cases could go up fast, come down fast. we are on the downward trend. they could go back up. we hope that is not the case. given where we have been for over two years now, i think the point is cases are starting to come down. hospitalizations are still going up. the rate of increase is starting to slow down. the important news is that hospital capacity still remains robust. we still have capacity to take care of people if they have covid or other medical conditions in the hospital system that is a key metric going forward. >> what type of restrictions are you talking about?

>> well, it will be combination of factors we are looking at. it is too premature to speculate the order they would be lifted. we would look at similar processes by which we have lifted restrictions after the prior surges. it is the layered defenses we required. you know we have had the indoor masking back into place. that is something we would look at in other similar restrictions. i don't want to jump too far ahead. we are still at high rates. hospitalizations are going up. they will level off we expect soon. important thing is after having been through the surges we want to be responsive in a way that reflects that we need to live with this virus. we don't want to hold onto restrictions waiting for omicron or covid to go away.

that is not going to happen any more. we will reach a place where covid is endemic. we will live with the virus. our lifting of restrictions will reflect that new reality. [indiscernable] >> the prior boosters is that going to help us? >> i refer you to the healthcare orders with regard to where people are required to have boosters. our point is that omicron has shown that people need to be up-to-date on vaccinations to be as protected as possible from omicron with regard to hospitalizations which is our goal here. getting people access to boosters is key. one of the reasons we have been so successful with the surge is

because we have a high booster rate. 61% of people vaccinated in the city have received a booster and are up-to-date on vaccinations. that is far higher than the national or state average. we want people to continue to get boosters. we will make them available in the healthcare systems including health department and pharmacy partners. [indiscernable] >> it is clearly important that we have testing capabilities

throughout san francisco that people can trust. unfortunately we have had challenges with bad operators. i really applaud the city attorney's office and the city attorney for taking action and paying close attention to challenges that could arise for people taking the situation for granted. >> it is not unchecked power for the police department. the fact is we want to address the challenges of crime in our city. in facts, you know, everyone is now carrying around all of these gadgets, phones, some someone's face in the public. anyone not law enforcement can see everything going on. people from all over the city and when you talk about a situation for example what happened in union square. the fact that there was a lot of

online chatter, our officers were aware and needed another resource through video to observe the behavior and because of our ordinance could not, there are a lot of things that could have been prevented based on information we get. we are not only asking to allow this to happen based on evidence. part of my ordinance is to say we have to also report this information like when this is accessed by the san francisco police department it will be made public, it will be provided to the board of supervisors. if there is a need to do an investigation or anything about why they chose to do it and it t wasn't necessary, that will be dealt with. the goal is to address public safety. the fact we need the tool. responsible use of this tool to do so.

[indiscernable] >> my response is that the voters will decide because we are talking about the fact that, you know, we have major challenges with public safety. when i say public safety not just about theft. it is about assault and the number of people who have been attacked on our streets, the number of people who have been robbed and as salted. we want to make sure that we are using every tool at our disposable responsibly to keep people from san francisco safe. i don't think what i propose in my ordinance is unreasonable in light of everything that has been happening in san francisco. >> the voters of san francisco support you. go forward with it. >> thank you very much. from the mouths of citizens. >> mayor, could you address the

businesses and restaurants in san francisco that have had a lousy christmas. >> everyone had a lousy christmas. >> what words do you have for them for some of the restrictions to be lifted? >> my hope is that yes, as dr. colfax said. we also have a responsibility to follow the state orders. mostly when we look at the data, hospitalization rates, number of people who sadly passed away, it makes it possible for us to potentially remove a significant number of restrictions. i think ultimately regardless of the restrictions that is not keeping people away from these places. it is really not wanting to contract omicron. that is really what people are focused on is keeping distance to not get it. it is highly infectious and

challenging, people are getting it. the good news is that people for the most part are not ending up in the hospitalizations and dying in numbers we experienced this last year before we had access to the vaccine. i am hopeful and optimistic for the future and sadly so many small businesses and restaurants and families and people not able to get together is very, very challenging. my hope is as we begin to reopen and see numbers decline we are careful and go out and support our restaurants. we order pick up from the restaurants and support our small businesses. it is going to take all of us to get through this. part of that is san franciscans doing more to support our businesses. my drycleaner i have been going to the same drycleaner since i

had a drycleaner. i am not getting as many clothes cleaned as before. talking to find out how can i as long time customer be supportive? donations are helpful to the businesses you care about and support in that way. >> thank you very much everyone.

>> good morning and welcome to the rescheduled rules committee for today, valentine's day, february 14th, 2022. i am the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair. >> --, can we hold for a moment. i am hearing from your office that we may have an online issue with san francisco government t.v. not working. if you don't mind pausing momentarily while we check on that. >> take your time.

>> i believe the issue is on san francisco government t.v., the online version. whoever is checking on that.

chair peskin, a quick update. it looks like the live streaming on san francisco government t.v., we are getting network errors and they are checking on that right now. >> okay. >> everything is working, it is just not streaming on our website. they are addressing the issue right now. we will give you an update momentarily. >> okay.

>> chair peskin, --

>> supervisor peskin: february 14th, 2020. due to technical difficulties, we are starting now. i'm joined by supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. and your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the minutes will reflect the members of this meeting participated in this meeting remotely. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public comment in the following ways. either channel 76, 28, 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in number across

the screen. each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes to speak unless otherwise stated. or call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24950524358 then press pound and pound again. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down your television or radio. or you may submit public comment to myself, victoryoung@sfgov.org. written comments may be sent to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b.

goodlet place. and just a word for the streamers at sfgovtv.org. for today's session, you will be redirected to a youtube website for streaming services for this meeting. that concludes my initial announcements chrment thank you, mr. young. and we are joined by supervisor mar for the first item. mr. clerk, can you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number one is a motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on june 7th, 2022, an ordinance to amend the police code to require employers to provide public health emergency leave during a public health emergency. if you haven't already done so, dial star three to line up to

speak for public comment. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. and. >> supervisor mar: supervisor mar did we hear the controller's statement last week? >> supervisor mar: i don't believe so. >> chairman: okay. why don't we start with the controller's statement as we do with all the items in front of us. ms. stevenson, good morning. >> good morning supervisors. peg stevenson from the controller's office. i submitted a letter which is in your file just providing likely basic staffing costs that would come with this measure. in our lingo this is a moderate cost to government and then reminding people that the eventual development would depend on where yourself and

approve a budget through your normal processes and future mayors and boards of supervisors to a particular cost. so that is typically how we advise these measures and that's what our letter reflects. happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty straight forward in that way. >> chairman: are there any questions for the controller's office? seeing none. supervisor mar, i believe you have some additional amendments this morning that you've circulated to the members of this committee. the floor is yours. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, supervisor peskin, and supervisor mandelman. also i want to thank supervisor chan for your co-sponsorship and your support. so i do have a second addition to the amendment this morning,

but i did also want to state the first set of amendments introduced last week these additional amendments were created through our continuing engagement with labor and employer groups towards the goal of finding the right balance of protecting and supporting workers during the current and future health emergencies while also preventing unreasonable burden on our employers. i want to thank council and sf building and construction trades. the chamber of commerce and the golden gate restaurant association in advance for their constructive engagement on this with this important measure. to briefly summarize the four amendments that were circulated to you and that i'm hoping the committee would adopt today. the first one is on page five, line 17 to 21. and for purposes of allocating the hours available to

part-time workers, employers will now look back at the hours over the prior six months rather than the prior three months with the look-back provisions in a statewide supplemental lead. we added language to the office of labor enforcement standards to count other hypothetical forms of supplemental leads that employers may have offered for the offsetters and, thirdly, on page nine, lines 18 to 22, we specified that employers can request a doctor's note using public health emergency for air quality to confirm their status as a member of a vulnerable population and then fourth and lastly on page 17, line 25, we added the ability to amend

public health emergency leave and scope of coverage for air quality emergencies because this is the new sort of policy provision in this proposal. again, thanks again, colleagues and i request that you adopt the amendments that i've shared with you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar, and thank you for sharing those on friday so we can read them over the weekend. i am fine with them. why don't we if we don't have comments from committee members open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number one? >> clerk: yes. if you have not already done so, please dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have 14 callers on the line with four on the line to speak. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. i'm waiting for a different agenda item.

so i'll go back in the queue. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: can you hear me? >> chairman: mr. pillpell, please proceed. >> caller: i'm sorry, i didn't know that i raised my hand. i'm trying to juggle the technology here. we don't seem to have captions on the youtube feed which is the redirect from from the channel one live item and i guess i'm -- i didn't have anything substantiative on item one. but i'm guessing these will trigger continue this to a special rules committee meeting or continue this to the 28th. i'm trying to juggle all the things going on this morning. it's very complicated.

thanks. >> chairman: next speaker. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. this is lori camas calling from the golden gate restaurant association. i wanted to call and thank supervisor mar and his staff for the super helpful that have resulted in these amendments and so we appreciate that very much. we do want to say that we still have the side and would suggest if possible we continue to relook at that sizing. [please stand by]

>> it is expensive to clean the docs and maintain the high standards. i appreciate this one amendment. i also appreciate anything that is done to help our nurses, our

doctors, those on the front lines. we know a lot of them have reached saturation point. totally stressed out. so whatever we can do to lessen their stress, we appreciate it and we thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public to make public comment on item number 1. >> we are doing one last final check. that was the last caller on this matter. >> okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, given that the 21st is president's day and a holiday, i have asked the

clerk's office to convene a special meeting of this committee the following day, th. i believe it is at 10:00 am. is that correct,, mr. young? >> yes. that is the correct request. may i ask if we can continue the matter to the call of the chair with the intent to schedule while i work out the logistics with all the other bodies? >> absolutely. i just want to be able to let the public know that the next meeting is almost certainly going to be on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. as a technical matter, we will continue after we make amendments this item to the call of the chair. please, as it relates to this and other measures on this agenda, know that it will be heard almost certainly on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. with that, i would like to make a motion to adopt supervisor

mar's aforementioned and discussed amendment. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] >> the motion passes without objection. >> then i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to the call of the chair, noting that it will likely, almost certainly be heard on february 22nd at 10:00 am. on that motion, a vehicle, please... [ roll call ] -- on that motion a roll call, please this. [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> i will note, colleagues and members of the public, that any

item that we take action on on february 22nd can be forwarded to the board in the normal course of business, not as a committee report to be heard on march 1st which is the first day -- last day for the board of supervisors to put initiative ordinances on the ballot. i wanted to announce that so everyone is aware. please read item two through five together. >> yes, item two is a motion submitted to the voters of an election to be held on june 7th, 2022 amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to replace a hearing for the department of public works with a requirement that the controller and administrator regularly monitor the rates and appear before the refuse rate board to recommend adjustments. item three is motion submitted

to the voters to be held on june 7th, 2022 and amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the refuse rate setting process should replace hearings before the department of public works with a requirement that the controller, as refuse rate administrator, regularly monitor the rates and appear for the refuse rate board to recommend rate adjustments. item four is a hearing to propose an ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the rate setting process. item five is a hearing to consider the proposed ordinance i proposed by voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the refuse rate setting process. >> thank you, mr. young.

thank you, colleagues. when i say thank you, colleagues, i am referring not only to supervisor chan and mandelman on this panel, but every member of the board of supervisors and the mayor as it relates to this somewhat monumental undertaking. candidly this is the culmination of a total choice past couple of years and i'm not talking about the pandemic. in many ways this measure, and actually the measure that we are closing today's meeting with, it aims to bookend a year's long continuing to unravel corruption prices in the city and county of san francisco. that corruption crisis has been, i think we all know, incredibly costly. as it relates to recology, that cost has been borne by the

ratepayers and residents and businesses of san francisco to the tune of at least $94.5 million, which, thankfully, has been refunded. you might ask why we are considering foreign measures. hopefully this entire episode will end with one measure being on the ballot. the measures before us revisit the waste management ordinance that we commonly referred to as the 1932 ordinance which has been largely unchanged in our laws for almost 100 years, 90 years to be exact. it was amended a couple of times in the fifties and sixties. it can only be amended or rescinded at the ballot. there has been a couple of unsuccessful attempts to revoke the 1932 ordinance on the balance -- on the ballot with proposition a in 2012.

all of these measures amend the long-held monopoly on waste management in san francisco and create a more dynamic regulatory oversight relationship between the city and our company. let me explain a little bit about why there are foreign measures and talk a little bit about the process that god is here. over a year ago, as the revelations of overcharging and the corruption in and around the ratemaking process as related to mohammed new roux, under the 1932 ordinance, the director of public works ultimately issues some orders. at that time, together with mayor breed, we convened a working group. you will hear a little bit more

about that from the controller's office. it spent the last year looking at the current regulatory scheme and explored other options. ultimately, we landed on a well thought out and reasonable ordinance that is item 220052 in this packet, which we brought to recology on december 9th. we gave them an advanced copy of an early draft to discuss with them the working group which had a broad group of stakeholders ranging from the building owners and managers' association to representatives of tenant's interest, to the apartment association. they did not, by design, include recology.

but as that group and the city's internal group run by the controller's office came to a consensus, we brought the draft ordinance to recology. recology expressed a number of concerns and we committed to continue conversations with recology. unfortunately, and i have never actually seen this by a corporation or anybody that i have negotiated with in the almost 20 years that i have been a member on this board of supervisors, rather than negotiate in good faith, recology, 11 days later decided to collect signatures for their own ordinance, which would not allow any future amendment by the city by and through the

board of supervisors and the mayor. and that resulted in my coming forward with the next item that has already been called, file number 22053 which would put their franchise out to bid upon passage by the voters, and also would lead to an introduction as allowed by the charter to -- two identical measures directly to the ballot. thank you two supervisors chan and mandelman for signing on to those, along with supervisors ronen and walton. hopefully on the first day of march we would draw our signatures from those two instruments, which are the hearings that are items four and five on today's calendar, but what i would like to do is go over both items.

i have a number of amendments to the full board. i wish it weren't this way, but based on recology's behaviour in december and january, i do not trust them. i would like to maintain leverage until the end. with that, unless there are any introductory remarks from colleagues, i really would like to thank and acknowledge the deputy city attorney who has done an extraordinary job of defining what i was thinking and working with for the task force. i want to thank and acknowledge been rosenfield and his team and others in the controller's office for doing all of the hard work and analysis to get us here. and i would like to thank the mayor's office and the chief of staff for their hands-on

participation and help all along the way, and if there are no comments from committee members, i like to turn it over to natasha from the controller's office who can run us through all of the high points of the legislation and then, colleagues, i will speak to a number of pretty straightforward amendments. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. good morning. my name is natasha. i am in the controller's office. there is an echo. maybe supervisor peskin, go on mute. that would be helpful. i will assume it is okay to share my screen. i have a few slides to go through here. as the supervisor mentioned, earlier in 2021 the controller's office worked with supervisor

peskin and the mayor's office to understand what are some of the key concerns particularly around residential rates. these were our guiding questions around accountability and transparency. does the public truly understand how the process is managed? what is the quality of service? is a cost-effective, does it meet our stated environmental goals, our performance standards, and are the rates the customers are paying appropriate and fair for residential refuse service? these were the questions that we took a look at the existing system and how we might be able to make changes. some of our findings are the ratesetting timeframe may be too long to correctly estimate the cost. there is an ad hoc nature to this. every four to five years there is a rate sitting process. staff have to drop what they are doing and relearn and build expertise. the rate calculations themselves are very complicated. they are not transparent and

there is an opportunity to improve the methodology to make sure that what rates are being paid actually match revenues and expenses. also a lack of ongoing monitoring. there's low public confidence because we don't have independent audits. there is an ongoing moderating which are environmental and customer service goals and the rate board is not involved in the monitoring of the ratesetting process. as the supervisor mentioned, this measure does date back to 1932 which limits the city's ability to make changes to the system when issues are identified. the proposal that is before you today would establish the controller as the refuse rate administrator. a team in the controller's office would be responsible for administering the ratesetting process and proposing rates to the rate board. this group would work with subject matter experts in public works, in the department of environment to come up with those proposed rates for the

rate board to take and review, listen to, and approved. that new group would also do ongoing financial and performance monitoring of the residential refuse provider for right now in the annual balancing of expenses, revenue, performance monitoring which would actually happen. the rate board memberships and responsibilities would change so in order to ensure full transparency and any perceived conflict of interest, the controller would not be on the board anymore and we would add a ratepayer representative. the rate board would also proactively approved rate applications and also oversee ongoing financial and performance reporting. as part of that, the board would conduct an annual financial audit, independent financial audit with a contractor that they have selected. and the measure allows flexibility for the future.

the measure does authorize the regulation of commercial rates and allows changes to the ordinance with a board super majority and mayoral approval. that is the end of my presentation. >> thank you so much. thank you for your work along the way. seeing no other comments from committee members, thank you again, supervisors mandelman and chan for your constant support and help. i want to thank and acknowledge the day to day men and women who do the work at recology. i'm not talking about the corporate management that i have had a very unfortunate experience with over the last couple of months. i'm talking about the people who drive the tracks and collect our refuse and i want to say that

they have been burdened by the corruption scandal. it is not of their making and they have continued to carry out their duties, they're very difficult duties everyday with pride and care. i really want to acknowledge the employees, almost 1,000 of them from the teamsters. colleagues you are in receipt of a letter from the teamsters local 350 from john bouchard, today, this morning, in support of the efforts that we have been undertaking. i want to thank him for his help and support. at the end of the day, what this is about is the consumer. i hate to use the win win term, but this is a win for the consumers and a win for san francisco residents and it is

also a win for commercial ratepayers as they have historically not been regulated under the 1932 ordinance and this ordinance does provide the ability for the city to regulate commercial rates and residential rates. to put it simply, it is trash day in san francisco and it is time for us to take out the trash. i think that is what we are doing. as to -- sorry, that is low hanging fruit. as to the amendments, to both file 22 and 53, on page 3 of both measures, strike the word residential in front of refuse service because the principles set forth as a cost-effective service standard, they applied to both residential and commercial service on page 4,

insert language clarifying the definition of refuse. it includes recyclables and compostable's and crop -- and trash but does not include waste materials. as those terms are defined in chapter 19 of the environment code, which may be amended from time to time. these were not thoughts. this is a commonsense update. on page 5 of those measures, around line 10, insert the word, in accordance with the law and then at line 11, move the word daily and add at the end of that sentence, at a frequency in accordance with the law. this is reflecting reality relative to the amount of service that people need. at page 6 of those measures, and i will note for my colleagues, here is when the measure starts to deviate, just slightly, but

in the interest of providing additional clarity to the rate board regarding what it may consider when determining an applicant's ability to minutes might -- minimize disruptions in service, i want to show a certification that the applicant has appointed one or more employee representatives to a board that may suffice to make the showing. in file 52 page 6, lines 14 through 18, the section regarding constraints on the director of public health authority to issue permits that are already being adequately served and we are making similar cleanup amendments in the file ending in 53 at page 7, line two, inserting the language that if the director finds there is inadequate service, which specifies the director of public health is an entity charged with determining whether inadequate services exist, which would warrant modification or replication of the permit. on page 8 of both measures,

inserting language that the refuse rate administrator, the controller, in the new scheme, in the context proposing new rates, monitoring the financial operation and performance of refuse collectors, performing studies and add investigations and advising the rate board, may take into account, this is the new language, any applicable service standards in the environmental call is established by law. and page 9, file 52 and page 10 of file 53, recommend authorize with the refuse rate board as authorized to perform audits that are regulated with revenues and in subsection six, at audits and performance standards applied to the refuse correctors just collectors and refuse disposers. on page 12 of the file, ending in 52 and page 13 ending in 53, increasing the amendment

threshold for the board of supervisors to amend section 290 of the health code from seven supervisors down to eight supervisors. and both measures we are providing them to adopt legislation concerning permits that should not be interpreted to affect or change the authority that public health currently has with absence of legislation with regards to absence or renewal. colleagues, that concludes the amendments. if there are no questions or comments, let's odom items two through five. supervisor chan? >> thank you. i want to thank you for bringing me along on this journey to reform a critical service for the entire city, both for the resident and for the city

itself. it is monumental work. i learned a lot through this process, both strategically thinking about how to make this reform and get on the ballot is no small feat. i thank you for that. most importantly is the critical work that you have put in to truly make this a better process. and continue to maintain the quality of service. i think the question is really about the people who have been providing the city and county of san francisco this management service. we're not doubting the quality of it. is more about the transparency and accountability of ratesetting and how to be efficient and also catch errors in time. i appreciate all the work on this. i want to be on the record to thank you for your leadership but also thank everybody that has been putting their hard work, including the controller's

office and many other stakeholders that you put together for the task force and putting their effort into this reform. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor chan. i sincerely appreciate it. i have not actually asked the controller to make their statement on these items. my bad. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so now. >> we can speak to these. we have estimated that this would be a team of 2-4 people in the controller's office, with other costs associated with providing public hearings where we are estimating it is roughly 500,002 $1 million a year. >> miss stevenson, is that moderate? in your lexicon, what is that? how does that score? >> moderate is correct.

>> okay. so with that, seeing no other members of the committee, let's go to public comment on items to through five. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items 2-5 should call 4156550001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue waiting until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comment. we have 16 callers on the line with three in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> supervisors, you do

understand this is a very complicated situation. so the controller's office has been in the cockpit fast asleep all these years. and in transparency that you want to establish, what role do the workers play? the company is owned by the workers. is that input that would be given to you by the workers, be at the teamsters or other unions. that is question number 1 what role will we constituents or residents play. nobody gave you the permission to speak for us.

for me, you are behind. this nonsense has been going on because you have all been looking the other way. what role will the department of environment play the controller's office has been fast asleep at the cockpit when it comes to corruption. in fact,, if you are a whistleblower and go to the controller's office, they don't give a damn that position is they are there to save the city and therefore, they adhere to the norms of being a whistleblower, that will put them in some liability when it comes to helping the

whistleblowers. >> your time has elapsed. next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i read an article about how the building that recology sold to amazon they bought with ratepayer money, therefore the ratepayer should be reimbursed, in that same vein, i'm wondering why recology -- it is all paid for by the ratepayers and they are the ones who are responsible for all the advice in the first place. i'm really confused on why they are allowed to keep doing these things. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning and thank you for your time and effort on this

matter. i am from teamsters local 350. we represent 900 refuse workers in san francisco and we are in full support of the proposed amendment. they would help protect our members, the ratepayers and the city of san francisco from further corruption. more oversight in the rate setting process is clearly needed and these changes provide that while creating a more transparent process for all involved. thank you for your time and effort again and have a good day. >> thank you for your help along the way. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me okay? >> please proceed. >> great. could i get a 32nd warning. good morning. on these issues, i haven't spoken to anyone at recology on this and i haven't been able to reach them in months.

the issues with the former dpw director and a rate miscalculation that resulted in a rebate to customers have been conflated here. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> supervisor peskin: -- continues to investigate whether there have been additional overcharges. -- when they manage to get all

the information they need from recology, which has been slow to come, but recently, last week, the controller said some encouraging words with regards to recology last week, so hopefully, the controller will be able to finish his work and issue his report. when it comes to final words on the department of environment. let me say concluesively that they have been involved with the drafting of the documents that are before you, and with

that, i would like to make a motion to file the last two items and continue two and three to our next meeting. and mr. young, are we now certain that that meeting will be on february 22 at 10:00 a.m.? >> clerk: i haven't checked logistics. i would still continue to request that you continue to the call with the caveat that we will most likely meet on february 22 at 10:00 a.m. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so it is a tripartheid motion to amend the files in 5-2 and 5-3 as previously discussed, to file items 4 and 5, and to continue the items 2 and 3 as

amended to the call of the chair, noting that they will most certainly be heard at the next meeting. roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> supervisor peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item number 6 is a hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted to supervisors entitled hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters for the june 7 rngs 2022

election, entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the office of the victim and witness rights, and to establish a right to counsel for domestic violence victims in civil proceedings related to limiting the economic, familial, and other harms resulting from domestic violence, and a pilot program to provide civil counsel in such domestic violence related proceedings through legal services and pro bono attorneys. >> chair peskin: supervisor chan, do you want to make comments? there was a hearing submitted to the charter by four or more members of the board. the primary sponsor is supervisor stefani, and the cosponsors are mandelman, safai, and haney, and if there are no questions at this time, i will turn it over to staff

for supervisor stefani. supervisor chan, you look like you want to say something although i don't see your name on the screen. go ahead, please. >> supervisor chan: my apologies, i do have questions, but i think it would be good for mr. mullen to go ahead and do his presentation. my questions are just for clarification. >> chair peskin: okay. andy mullen, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, and supervisors mandelman and chan for having me here today. i have a short presentation, and then, i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. i want to start this presentation by talking about the need. the need is very acute. approximately 20,000 times per quarter, a san francisco

resident is the victim of a crime according to police department data, and as high as that is, it's probably an undercount. the estimate by social sciences is that 40% of crimes are reported to law enforcement, and only about 3,000 of the reported incidents result in an arrest, and charges are filed in about 1,000 cases. the victims of crime in san francisco are primary women and people of color. in 2020, people of color were victimed in 73% of aggravated assaults, 73% of battery cases, 83% of robberies, 63% of burglaries, 88% of homicides, and 66% of sexual assaults. in particular, the need of domestic violence victims was particularly acute during the covid-19 pandemic. during that period, we saw

calls to crisis lines increase by almost 40%. calls to the cooperative restraining order clinic which provides some pro bono work for people, increased by 66%, and the turn away percent for people seeking emergency shelter was 79%. there was also a 79% decrease in cases solved by injure trial for people seeking or charged with domestic abuse. services for victims are spread out across various city agencies and often require significant legwork on the part of victims in order to access. there are victim services programming currently located in the district attorney's office and the office of economic and workforce development, and the bulk of

these services sort of sit at the back end of lengthy law enforcement processes, meaning that you typically need -- not always, but typically need an incident, a police report, an arrest, particularly an incident before you can access any of these services. so the situation before you today aims to address some of those issues. it does two things. it creates the office of victim and witness service rights. i'll begin by briefly explaining the office of victim and witness services. it will create a victim-first model for services in san francisco because we don't really know what all of these victims of crime need yet. what this initiative will do is it will create an office outside of law enforcement to

meet victims and witnesses where they are, at the front end of victimization. the mandates in this initiative that this office will have to meet at the outset should it pass, is that they will be mandated to provide comprehensive services to victim and witnesses, including culturally competent and linguistically appropriate services, including translation services, including ensuring translation services are readily available. and there are two ways to meet that mandate. one, streamline and strengthen the existing offering of services, and they need to develop new services. and so on the first prong, consolidate and streamline existing services. one year after the appointment and passage of a director, the director shall submit to the

board of supervisors all the services offered to witnesses and proposing a plan for how to consolidate and streamline them, and that proposal will help form the office and help the board of supervisors determine what funding would be appropriate for this service. the other purpose is to mandate new services. they will survey all victim and witnesses and get quality and feedback on all the services provided and it will be used to generate a work plan. the reason this initiative came into effect was because we heard a woman was a witness to a pretty violent gun shooting. because she wasn't a victim, she was treated as a witness to

a crime even though she felt that she was a victim. the other prong and mandate from this office will be to house and help victims of domestic violence. domestic violence remains a problem in san francisco. victims are primarily women and people of color. despite being only 5% of san francisco's population, african americans are 29% of the victims of domestic violence in the city, and, of course, the vast majority of those cases were women. this office will house and hold

a right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence [indiscernible] cut, child support, marcy's law, alimony, applying for social service benefits, health care, employment, and housing. we estimate in the early years there will be about 500 to 800 clients, and services will cost the city for the civil counsel piece alone, between $1 million to $3 million, subject to funding by the mayor and board of supervisors. studies by the robin hood foundation indicates that that provides $2 million to $3

million back to the city, and this measure was crafts in collaboration with a diverse group of providers, including the justice and diversity center, jewish family services, a.p.i. legal outreach, the brady campaign, the san francisco coalition against human trafficking, the american indian cultural district, and the national coalition for rights civil counsel, and that is the end of my prepared remarks, supervisors, and i'm happy to take any and all questions you may have. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. mullen. why don't we go to supervisor chan, and then, i've got some questions. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. mr. mullen, i think my question is just a point of clarification and trying to

understand -- like, just help me -- you know, the details about the office, you know, establishing this office and the logistics around it. and then, if you don't have answers, i totally understand because it looks like it would take an ordinance to consolidate some of the services. but my -- my first question is currently, i agree many different services exist. how would this affect the services that currently exist? >> we didn't want to turn out the lights in any office before we had turned on the lights on a new, hopefully better, home

for many of these functions. so this initiative ordinance requires the creation of a director, and it requires the director to come up with a service consolidation and streamlining plan a year after enactment. and should that be any impact to sharp, it would be on that plan, and it would be voted on by the board of supervisors. the real goal is to make sure sharp's services, should sharp move into these offices, we'll have plenty of chance to discuss that and any other services moving into this office. but it was very important not to close down sharp before something else could be reopened, so that was what governed this approach. >> supervisor chan: all right. and then, my follow up, i

appreciate -- some of the language talked about it's not just translation services or, like, let's also make sure there's hearing impaired and other challenges that face victims with disabilitied that we could address. and help me understand, too. i think you kind of talked a little bit about this, and i agree, because when it comes to victims, often time, as the system currently exists, you would have to file a report. you have to be already in the law enforcement system to already quote and quote be identified as a victim, but oftentimes, witnesses to a crime or some other circumstance, actually, those folks also need help. maybe not in the eye of the law, but could actually be deemed as victims. how do the victims get in touch with this office or how does

the office provide victims who are not in the law enforcement system services? >> the goal -- thank you, supervisor chan. that's an excellent question, and that gets to the heart of what we're trying to do here. it talks victims services, which is basically at the back of the services, a one-stop shop and make it available at the beginning. if you call them and say, i've been victimized, you could use them if you so chose, and they could help abate some of the things that you've experienced based on trauma or they could help you. so the idea that you now have a place that you can call without a case and tell them what happened, and they can give you sort of a buffet of options, but that's something, again, that has to be built out.

i don't want to overpromise and say june 2, this thing flies up, and every victim of violence will be helped. if they hear from victims about what they need, then, they can fill it out with what victims need acutely. >> supervisor chan: and i think the translation and victim services, i know that we're trying as a city to provide language services and most definitely victim services, but in my humble opinion, i think that my opinion, language access and cultural competency is significantly lacked. when it comes to victims experiencing any type of trauma, especially domestic

trauma and what are actually happening in their -- and what is actually happening in their homes, cultural competency is a huge component to successfully be able to help victims. so just want to say that as my thoughts, and in the event that it does get out and pass by the voters, i look forward to seeing the ordinance and learning more about it. >> thank you, supervisor chan, and i agree completely. >> chair peskin: i neglected, colleagues, to have the controller's office read the controller's statement. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so, please proceed. >> good morning, supervisors. peg stevens from the controller's performance group. you have a letter in your packet probably just reflecting basic start-up costs for the

basic start-up activities that are outlined in the ordinance. so this would be a director for the office and some staffing and operational support to carry out the service and needs, and our estimate for those costs are right around $1 million, which would be a director and staffing support for those activities. and then, as mr. milan alluded, the rest of the costs would come in the form of ordinances, proposals that come through your normal budgetary and fiscal processes. happy to answer any questions, but it's fairly straightforward that way. >> chair peskin: yes, miss stevens. it is in our packet, but just wanted you to say it so the public could hear it. so i guess these are more comments than questions, and i want to thank supervisor stefani and the other

individuals who signed onto this and say that i think this could be passed by this board probably unanimously well before june. i think if you introduce this at tomorrow's board meeting, it could probably be law by the end of march, and obviously, the charter allows this to go directly to the ballot, but insofar as the first phase of this is an exploratory phase, as we've done with many other offices, racial equity, cannabis, you name it, they were created by the board; and further, insofar as because

this is a chart amendment, the ordinary -- charter amendment, being approved by the voters only guarantees funding for one year. it just seems like this is good stuff, and we could actually have it be law several months before the june election. supervisor mar, one of the things that i asked him about his ordinance, why can't we just put this before the board, and he actually had a cogent response was that no, he had been advised by the city attorney that previous ballot measure occupied this field.

it could only be done at the ballot, and at that point, i understood why it was before us. so it just seems like we could do this under the dome, and the next couple of items with regard to surveillance, i hope, if everything works out, and cooler heads prevail, we will do it under the dome. but those ballot items haven't been called, so i won't speak to those for another moment or two. but those are my thoughts, which doesn't need to be on the ballot. >> did you want a response, supervisor peskin? or i don't need to -- i'm not trying to. >> chair peskin: yeah. >> the path -- you are not wrong on this issue and many others. the path that was chosen was just a parallel path to the

right to counsel. when enshrining a right, we have to go to the voters to ask them if that is a worthy right to enshrine. >> chair peskin: tenant right to counsel was not actually put on by the electeds, that was put on by the voters, so that was an exception to admittedly my own self-imposed rule, which is if you want to go out and get 9,000 ballot signatures, you can do whatever you want, but the folks who were elected to pass laws did not actually put that on the ballot, so there's a -- there's a difference there. >> there is, but i think that was probably a choice that seems like the board would have been ready and interested in passing that.

>> chair peskin: i would tell you that i know, but i don't know because that was in my glorious seven-year hiatus, so i don't know why that was put to the voters and not to the electeds. all right. supervisor mandelman, anything you want to add as a cosponsor? okay. you've got a lot of words this morning. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: yeah, i just want to say that i am thankful to supervisor stefani's leadership on this, and especially many others that concern victims of crime, that i did, too -- that i do, too, agree with chair peskin. many of the things that i'm working on, i thought better of it, and how can i better do the legislative process to look at

it here. especially when it comments to charter amendments, i take it seriously, and i agree with chair peskin. last week, when we had questions about supervisor mar's legislation, just double-check and triple check with the city attorney after the meeting, just to make sure that there are no paths with the existing legislative process, that it just goes through as a legislation we can pass, knowing that we will likely have to vote. in fact, i think this is a very worthwhile endeavor that we can take on right now before june. [please stand by]

>> my apologies. is this item eight? what item is this. >> item six. >> item six. thank you. i will wait for a later item. thank you. >> are there any additional speakers for this item number 6? >> that was our only color for this item. >> okay, if there are no final comments, i will make a motion to file this hearing. on that motion, mr. young, a rule call, please. >> the motion to file... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> thank you, supervisors. happy valentine's day.

>> likewise. can you read items seven and eight together, please? >> yes, item seven is a hearing to consider the post initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the police department to acquire and use surveillance technology with respect to certain criminal events as defined and criminal activity that is concentrated in certain geographically distinct areas. item number 8 is the hearing to consider the proposed ordinance performed by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election, entitled ordinance amending the administered of code to adopt with minor changes as a voter approved measure the ordinance which currently requires the city departments acquiring surveillance

technology or entering into agreements to receive information from noncity-owned surveillance technology and submit a board of supervisors approved surveillance technology policy ordinance based on policy or policies developed by the committee on information technology. >> thank you, mr. young. why don't we start with the controller's statement for items seven and eight, which i believe have no financial impact, but miss stevenson? >> that is correct. just affirming your statement. no significant costs to the government. >> thank you, miss stevenson. i will give mr. power, from the mayor's office, as well as chief scott who is here, an opportunity to present, but before i do that, i want to set the stage and remind everybody how we got to where we are, and

that really begins with a law that i authored a number of years ago in 2019. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for your vote in support of that. the law was crafted in collaboration with the coalition of advocates who i want to acknowledge, ranging from the american civil liberties union, the electronic frontier foundation, secure justice, open privacy, council of arab and islamic relations, media justice, and the first amendment coalition, as well as dozens of other civil liberties, privacy and free-speech organizations. a total of 36 organizations submitted a letter last thursday reiterating their support of the 2019 surveillance oversight ordinance. and by way of background, it operated and new framework for public oversight of government use of surveillance technology. and by the way, it was not a san

francisco first. i think we were the seventh municipality to pass this kind of legislation. ours was unique and so far as it did, and was the first to ban facial recognition technology in surveillance -- in the use of surveillance technology. that was in the midst of the trump presidency. we really put forward a plan to provide digital safety and sanctuary in san francisco, and just because the political climate has improved under the current administration, that doesn't mean that the rest of the civil liberties have magically disappeared overnight or they will not reemerge in ways that everyone should find quite disturbing. in the past few years since we have passed that policy, dozens

of other jurisdictions across the country have adopted similar policies in the age of technology, and here locally, dozens of our departments have submitted surveillance technology policies, which you are aware because we have reviewed and approved every single one which pertain to family technology ranging from the use of security cameras, to automatic license plate readers, to radiofrequency identification, there are dozens of technologies outstanding. and many departments that still have yet to come into compliance with the 2019 law. i believe the ordinance has already been a fledgling success for the first time in our city's history. members of the public can go online and see a list of every technology own or used by the government here in san francisco. they can view policies for how that technology is used, how

long it is shared, how long it is stored, and they can hold the government accountable for deviation from those policies. to me this represents a significant and important cultural and policy shift from where we were a decade ago when revelations of mass secret surveillance by the nsa made headlines around the world. and yet, three years after we collectively celebrated the passage of the surveillance oversight policy law, we find ourselves contending with a proposal that could do aspects of that law. i have been quite consistent in my thinking about the pallet, which i just expressed in the last item, which is that we should use it as a port of last resort when we -- [ indiscernible ] -- or need to amend the charter or pass a bond.

as i have expressed to the chief and the police department and the mayor's office, i would like to see us try to exhaust a legislative remedy that is available to us before proceeding to the pallet. that remains my position this morning and we have had -- proceeding to the ballot. we have had productive conversations to the mayor's office. i have remained committed to working collaboratively and hope we can mutually agree on a path forward. in response to the mayor's measure, along with supervisors preston, chand, ronen, and walton, we put forward another ballot measure, which is item eight, where we are hearing with item seven, which would reinforce existing and subjection to a higher threshold for amendment by the board of supervisors. for a law like this one which effectively regulates the

regulators, gives members of the public additional confidence that it will not be subject to manipulation when opportunity presents itself. before i turn it over to mr. power and chief scott, i want to note that the p.d., this past week, drafted a policy governing the use of third-party security cameras. and while it needs some work, and should be publicly vetted, as we have done with other policies, it is a gesture of good faith and i would much rather spend my time in my office's time working to fine tune that policy and move it through the established process. i will conclude my remarks on a cautiously optimistic note. we have some work ahead of us. that work can be spent in a tough public battle over the next three months or it can be spent working together to bring

departments, including the san francisco police department, into compliance with the surveillance oversight law. i happen to think that our efforts are better spent in the latter category, but that, of course,, will require pulling both measures from the ballot on or before march 1st, which is the last day to pull it. march 4th is the last day to pull it. we will see what transpires over the next couple of weeks, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the people of the city and county will see is all working together. with that, i will turn it over to mr. power and chief scott for their remarks. inc. you. >> -- thank you. >> thank you. i will speak for one minute because i know the chief has another commitment at noon that he has to run to and i want to get him to speak on this as well. very briefly, i echo your sentiments, supervisor. it is our goal and desire to move this forward legislatively. there is an ordinance currently

pending. we have been working with your office collaboratively and i appreciate that collaboration. i'm optimistic that we will -- cooler heads will prevail and we will move forward a policy that we can all support. with that, i would like to turn it over to the chief to get some context as to what specifically is needed. i am speaking to item number 7. that this measure is intended to support. chief? >> thank you. >> good morning, chair peskin. good morning, supervisor chan, supervisor mandelman and mr. power. first of all, supervisor peskin, i want to thank you for listening and working with us on this very important issue. i also want to thank mr. power from the mayor's office and the mayor for also listening and agreeing to work together cooperatively. basically, i will give you the

very short version of the issue for the police department. we understand and respect they don't intend to breach that. we thank you for your work to get us to this point in terms of identifying all the surveillance technology policies. the police department feels we can better use technology to address some of the challenges as a relates to acrylic -- criminal activity in our city and county. and specifically there are things that we believe we can be more efficient at in terms of life access to camera feeds when crimes or occurring or where there is information, credible information that gives every indication that crimes are about to occur. we are talking about serious crimes and we're talking about things like what happened in union square on november 19th. that is the spirit that we are working within. we do believe that there is room to improve our existing policies

and look forward to working with you and the mayor's office to give our input on what those things might look like. and the law is saying too that as we work together on this, we are all about equity in the city. we believe that a thoughtful discussion about the policy issues, they will give us a better opportunity to address issues city wide. not just we saw on november 19th, but areas in the city that have been continuously, and traditionally hard-hit by violent crime, drug dealing, drug overdoses as a result of those dealings. i truly believe from a policing standpoint, smart, thoughtful and boundless use of technology can help us get to a better place in addressing those

issues. that is the spirit from which we are working on. i want to thank you for your willingness to work with us and we look forward to coming up with a policy that makes sense for our city. >> thank you, chief. i have any number of questions, but it sounds like we are on the right path. you are under a time crunch, which is not your fault or our fault, it is the fact that we were delayed in our and 20 minutes and starting -- in starting our meeting this morning. i will reserve those questions and god willing and fingers crossed, we will work on that before the end of the month, unless there are any questions for you from committee members, go to your meeting, chief. okay, supervisor chan? >> thank you. >> chair peskin, i just want to thank you. i am pleased to hear that we will continue on what we have been talking about in terms of the way we are treating these ballot measures and initiatives.

we can find ways to work this out through legislation. i think that it is all the better for the policymakers and for our voters that we are not -- we are doing our job and making the decision that we are elected to make and do. think you. >> thank you. why don't we open item seven and eight to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on these items? >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 24940524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. if you are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comments.

we currently have 15 callers in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. on behalf of the organization and lockstep with our partners at the aclu and other civil rights and social justice organizations, we oppose any efforts to got the san francisco surveillance law which protects the community from abuses by sfpd and we know that these concerns are also shared by members of the board. at a time when the executive branch has used harmful rhetoric to criminalize broad swaths of our most vulnerable neighbors and in a time when the police selected to draw from the m.o.u. with the district attorney's office, which helps hold the department accountable, and in a time when the findings for the most recent ripple report once again found black san franciscans are overrepresented

per capita in all interactions with sfpd. the mayor is proposing to roll back civil rights and can encourage continuing police abuse. the department was unable to answer the most basic questions in a culture that is unwilling to change. so many of our communities have been harmed by over policing and under no circumstances should sfpd have virtually unchecked this. san franciscans have the right to know about and regulate the surveillance technology that they have access to and how it is utilized. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> good morning. i am speaking today as a 32 year resident of district eight. especial good morning to supervisor mandelman. i'm here to express my strong opposition to the mayor's measure to weaken san francisco

teacher surveillance ordinance. during the george floyd protest, i went to every march and rally i could find, did you? we were there to demand justice and accountability. instead, the san francisco police department unjustly, unaccountably and illegally subjected us to surveillance. the department's actions speak louder than their words here today. now the mayor wants to reward and institutionalize this unacceptable behaviour. i agree with chair peskin. the mayor should immediately withdraw her measure, but failing that, all board members who have not already done so, and yes, i'm looking at you, supervisor mandelman, should add their names to the countermeasure and sign the ballot argument against the mayor's measure and in support of the countermeasure. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello.

my name is tim kingston. i am a member of the san francisco public defender for racial justice committee. i helped pass this legislation. i know what is in it. the problems with the mayor freed and chiefs got with the surveillance ordinance for not accurate. the legislation already allows for low enforcement access in the event of circumstances. i repeat, this is already in the legislation. the mayor is driving a bulldozer through the back wall of the legislation to knock it down when the front door is welcoming. or proposal is unnecessary and must be withdrawn. why is she lobbying a grenade when she has a key to the house? the mayor is succumbing to a moral panic about crime, like most moral panics, it targets a solution. it was put in place to prevent such a mistake. surveillance tech makes mistakes. we know that surveillance tech frequently misidentified as people of color.

we know that surveillance technology is invariably concentrated on and targeted on the poor and communities of color. we know this is why the country has more people in jail than any other industrial nation. the ordinance as it stands protects our constitutional rights, our privacy and civil rights. the mayor said during the george floyd black lives matter protest that she wants to reform the police and protect black lives and civil rights. white she going back on her word. the wind has shifted. she should not. withdraw this legislation and please stop browbeating the supervisors to participate in this. thank you. >> thank you, speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i am with the foundation and i am a resident of the district eight. along with a diverse coalition of organizations across the city

and region, we have supported the landmark surveillance technology ordinance when it passed in 2019 because of its key goals of transparency, democratic control and public input. that is why we oppose the mayor's initiative which would get the ordinance and allow police to evade oversight. the sfpd has a long history of surveilling marginalized communities, including the lgbt community, labor activists, and communities of color. we should not give them a blank check to determine when and where to deploy surveillance technology. there must be guard rails to hold the police accountable and allow the community to be heard. that is why we support the ballot initiative which seeks to maintain oversight of surveillance. ultimately, we urge the mayor to pull her measure from the ballot. the police must follow the law, not tried to evade it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good morning. i have lived in the castro district for 22 years and i worked downtown in the design district. i strongly oppose giving them unchecked surveillance powers without any public oversight to hold them accountable. our city will be forever changed if the sfpd has the unlimited authority to secretly monitor us for any reason they choose, including our constitutional right to protest. i believe that it is invasive and it will be used to unfairly target activists and marginalized communities, so i urge the mayor to withdraw this measure from the ballot. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i am the senior government relations court nature for the council on the mayor of islamic relations. as part of a diverse coalition of community members and

organizers and organizations who advocated for the surveillance ordinance originally. we urge mayor breed to pull the proposal that would get the city's surveillance. san francisco must not give the san francisco p.d. virtually unchecked surveillance powers. in her proposal that feeds on the fears of crimes and it is an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. the fact that it can virtually give unchecked authority to and realtime surveillance footage, in any other surveillance technology without oversight is really concerning. and this also includes technology like drones or microphones that record our voices from afar. the sfpd has the tools in order to access the information. they just need to go through the proper process of doing so. this proposal is a way to go around that and it causes significant damage to our community. what it will do is, you know,

the technology has never been more invasive and we know that without this oversight then this could be used for activists of people in color and people in poverty. we urge the commission, the committee to reject this. we want them to fully support the ordinance in its full authority and to reject the mayor's proposal. thank you, so much. >> my apologies. thank you, next speaker. >> good morning. i am a staff attorney with san francisco. together with 35 community groups, we submitted a letter to the board opposing the mayor's ballot measure. we also support the existing law

and we commend supervisors' efforts to defend it. we already know in san francisco what happens when the sfpd deployed surveillance without safeguards. for decades sfpd targets activists and demonstrators. they kept intelligence files on law-abiding residents and engaged in discriminatory surveillance. as a supervisor peskin said, the community came together and a near unanimous board past the surveillance oversight law in 2019. for nearly three years, sfpd has defied that law. even today, they are out of compliance on a number of things. the mayor's measure would reward the sfpd for refusing to submit to this oversight. it would turn back the clock the police cannot be trusted with this unchecked power. surveillance technology has never been more invasive and there needs to be guardrails. we all want san francisco to be

safe, which includes being safe from police abuse. mayor breed seizes upon fear to massively expand surveillance that will harm the very people most affected by serious crimes. make no mistake, as this grows, civil lights -- civil rights and civil liberties shrink, and it is black and brown people and people in poverty who bear the brunt of the violence. the mayor should pull the measure and come into full compliance with the city's existing surveillance law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. >> please proceed with your comment. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. i opposed this and any attempt

to make this an oversight law. surveillance technology is invasive and disproportionately negatively impacts people of color and low income communities. we need to hold high standards of public transparency and oversight for all police surveillance in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. can we get the next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is ashley morris. i work in the financial district for the last 15 years and commuted on barth. i support the 2019 ordinance and i opposed the mayor's attempt to got it. i urge her to withdraw the measure from the ballot. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next speaker, please? >> hello, excuse me. my name is christina. i have lived in district nine

for 25 years and i am adamantly opposed to allowing the sfpd to get a blank check on surveillance. that makes us all less safe, not more. they have already got a record of discriminatory treatment for people of color, towards activists. they have broken the law but illegally spying on black lives matter activists, and giving them unfettered access to technology without any oversight is just going to make us all less safe and destroy our civil liberties. please remove this from the ballot and i support the other supervisors who are trying to keep the existing law in place. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me? >> yes.

>> hi, my name is ajay. i am a resident. i am in d6 right now and. [ indiscernible ] -- my statement is to oppose the measures and to get the ordinance. just for a few reasons. quickly to help enforce the ordinance which has taken a lot of work to get into play -- [ indiscernible ] -- dealing with external forces, and to protect individual liberties free of charge. thank you very much. happy valentine's day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes, good afternoon, this is tracy from oakland privacy. i am calling to ask the supervisors to please affirm and

support the current existing surveillance law. in 2018, san francisco voters passed prop b., overwhelmingly saying yes to transparency and accountability in the interest of protecting privacy. oversight is not an impediment to public safety or to anything else. this is a strong argument that should not fall. we ask for the mayor to remove her or to withdraw her efforts. we ask for san francisco p.d. to come into full compliance with the ordinance and we ask for all the supervisors to endorse the countermeasure if it proves necessary to move forward with it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a constituent of district 10 and i'm calling today to object to the current level of surveillance. we know that in accessing the national network of surveillance, they have access to a variety of f.b.i. and d.o.j. sources that are questionably illegal, in addition to the regular utilization of surveillance technology that is against this. we have seen and demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with elected authority, whether it be their unwillingness to comply with oversight or oversight by the supervisors, or oversight by anyone. they are violent, they are destructive to society. today i am calling supervisors

to ask you to please continue your efforts to limit their ability to survey everybody and continue to increase efforts to bring into oversight. it is definitely called for. it has spilled over into our security of democracy. we can see that they have already demonstrated their usage of surveillance and at one time they were willing to break the law. we can see that they intend to do it and oppress our ability to speak and to politically oppress those they disagree with. with that evidence already here, i thank you for the measure and the mayor's actions here are deplorable.

i hope we will save voters on the ballot. thank you for your efforts to negotiate a way out of this and to bring the lawless sfpd. >> your time has expired. can we get the next caller, please? >> good morning, i am from d2 and urging that the mayor withdraw this absolute travesty of a ballot measure. urging the supervisors to support the current in-place technology surveillance law. there are ways for the p.d. two, with compliance, use surveillance, which is ridiculous, but they violated it and they were supposed to report in november what they had done, and here we are in the middle of february and we don't have a report. there's no transparency, there's no accountability.

no, we cannot support a surveillance proposal that takes up all the -- takes off all the guardrails. happy valentine's day. let's show our city and the people of our city some real love and support what is currently in place. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> chair peskin, honourable supervisors, my name is brian. here on behalf of unsecured -- of secure justice. we ask that the mayor withdraw her ballot proposal. we appreciate the comments made earlier by chair peskin and chief scott about working together on a youth policy without having to introduce competing ballot measures. this board has proven it is reasonable by unanimously approving almost 19 separate camera policies, submitted by other departments. in addition, sfpd has proven it

is capable of navigating the existing framework and having submitted policies. we provide free training to municipal staff as they attempt to navigate these mechanisms in the beginning and we did work with police on this to approve policy. providing the sound place to discuss potential red flags and how to mitigate them. we are happy to continue working with the team as they submit future proposals. none of what the police have said rises to the level of a charter amendment. they are seeking approval of specific uses for particular technologies. that is best suited for a use policy discussion and we are happy to hear the administration acknowledge that this morning. we agree it is time for the rhetoric to calm down. no one condones a violent crime or what is happening in the tenderloin. the police can submit the request of the existing framework and we will work together to ensure it is created. thank you for listening.

>> thank you. thank you for all your work on this item. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i have been a resident of district six for the past five years. i'm not an expert on legislative verbiage, but it seems unnecessarily broad. i don't understand why mass firearms and burglary are in the same category. furthermore, public safety crisis includes areas where there has been a documented increase in violent crimes over a 14 day period or longer. spike in crime over a short period of time is likely to be an anomaly, giving sfpd to use limited or misleading data to target areas they see fit. chief scott also made a comment that certain things can be more efficient in the process, but sometimes processes can't be more efficient or streamlined. to me it sounds like we are using a bizarre and uncommon

burglary event to justify spending surveillance. i strongly oppose this new ordinance. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a community advocate with the asian-american law caucus. we are one of 36 letters that were submitted on february 10th to the board of supervisors. sharing serious concerns with the mayor's measures to undo it. the asian law caucus has long worked with civil rights and civil liberties of the bay area residents, including immigrants and people of color on house populations and -- unhoused populations and religious minorities. the board has recognized before that sfpd has and continue to disproportionately and unduly

target these communities through the use of surveillance technologies, making the ordinance critical to protect their privacy. surveillance impacts all of our lives. this is why the ordinance must be protected. communities must be given the opportunity to engage in oversight and transparency to policing and surveillance activities that impact them and the mayor and the sfpd should not be allowed to sidestep the city. our communities in san francisco and across the bay area have long asked for less, not more surveillance reflected in the campaigns are organizations that have severed the city's relationship to the joint terrorism task force and other federal agencies that have targeted and harassed our communities without suspicion. what we have long asked for is more investment in housing, healthcare, and education programs that help our diverse communities to thrive. we ask you to do all in your power.

reiterate the sfpd must comply with the law and that any and all exceptions be subject to the democratic processes provided under the ordinance. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of district five in san francisco. i strongly oppose any attempt to scale back the city's surveillance technology ordinance. is concerning that mayor preet has seized upon fear about crime as an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. it gives the sfpd unchecked authority to use realtime surveillance footage in any technology without public oversight. in 2020, the police even broke the law to illegally spy on black lives matter activists and this new proposal by the mayor rewards the police for lawless behaviour.

san franciscans have the right to know what surveillance technology the police have and how they are using it, and the strengths to put in place to protect their rights. we must uphold the current law. i support the counterproposal. this is authored by the supervisors, and my own supervisor to maintain oversight of police surveillance. there must be guardrails to hold the police accountable and ensure transparency. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, i am the northern california organizer with california immigrant policy centre. i am calling because i, along with other organizations submitted a letter to oppose this new law that gives virtually unchecked power to sfpd to use these new

technologies. i strongly encourage the supervisors to oppose this law and keep the previous law. there is really no reason to give unchecked power and surveillance data. the use of fear and fear mongering for crimes. this is an argument that has been used for a decade to crack down on communities of color, and for communities and activists. we already have proven records of sfpd abusing power. i strongly urge the supervisors to oppose this new law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> greetings. i am calling -- i don't need to

echo all of what has been said. everyone has been very articulate in what has been said. one of the things that i do want to say is if there is checks in place, what would be the reason for removing them? the only reason we would want to remove them is because -- [ indiscernible ] -- that is not rocket science. i am going to say that i reject the mayor's attempt -- [ indiscernible ] -- i ask that you not supported as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am not a district eight resident, but i will also say hi

to supervisor mandelman and support -- urge him to support the measure to strengthen the surveillance technology ordinance. i commute into the city to work and also to see my adorable 18 month old niece. i really want her to grow up in a city that supports civil rights against backlash and that's what we are seeing right now is a backlash of civil rights. we saw it in the eighties and nineties and they gave us the system's mass incarceration that our country is dealing with right now. we also sought after the movement for black lives. we saw blue lives matter, the thin blue line and that gave us donald trump. now the city of san francisco is facing a backlash against the civil rights protections for surveillance and just as it did under the previous president in time for the city to stand up for civil rights and take the difficult but ultimately correct stand against the backlash and to protect its residents. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, i am head of library users association. i like to comment on item eight, file number 22, concerning acquisition and the use of surveillance technology. first of all, i would like to say that we appreciate the motives and much of what is in this, but are concerns that its focus leaves out certain very important intrusions and surveillances on the public. what is proposed talks about basically controlling what

departments may do with respect to the purchase of surveillance technology or accepting and expanding grants to purchase such material for the purpose of the department and surveilling certain people in the public. what this leaves out is the public's cost on certain technologies that are very surveillance rich or expensive. this does not take into account, apparently and i am concerned that it may not. business models which are in use that involved renting or using this software, such as youtube that is being used to transmit this very meeting, youtube is owned by google. they announced recently that there is no anonymous view on youtube because google owns it. it doesn't, and it also excludes third-party use of information that has been gotten such as, for example,, zoom for library virtual programs. the people using it are surveilled on in the library doesn't get the information, but the vendor of the supplier

does. we hope that you can include those dangers of surveillance as well. thank you. >> next speaker. >> we are doing our last double check to see if there are additional speakers one moment that was our last color. >> public comment is closed. we will see what the next couple of weeks hold. hopefully, as i said, we will work it out under the dome and it will come back to the board in the form of the approval of future use policies and tweaks to this section of code. thank you, supervisor mandelman for your support in 2019. supervisor chan was a member of this board, but we will have an

opportunity to vote on some amendments undoubtedly in the future unless we all end up on the ballot, in which case, the chief and i get to go to a lot of democratic clubs. okay. with that, i will make a motion to file items seven and eight. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> could you please read the last item? >> yes, item number 9 is a hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the campaign and government code conduct to expand their prohibition on the solicitation

of behest of payments to include city contractors seeking the board of supervisors' approval and to require approval by the ethics commission and super majority approval the board of supervisors for future amendments to local behest a payment restrictions. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, and members of the public, sorry for our late start, but it looks like we are going to get done here after this item and i will keep it brief. i think we are all familiar with the substance of this item as it has been passed unanimously at the board of supervisors just a couple of months ago. i won't call on the controller, but just represent the fact that this measure would not increase any costs to government. i want to thank the cosponsors who signed to put it on the ballot. supervisors chan, preston, mar, and president walton.

for members of the public who have not been following this issue of public policy, what has been put forward for the june ballot, unless removed on or before march 4th is virtually identical to what the board of supervisors passed in december. that is an ordinance that prohibits city officials, including ambers of the board of supervisors elected to department heads from soliciting payments from parties to have matters pending. it is an area that was ripe for corruption and as with earlier items regarding refuse disposal, the intent of this measure is to book and a disastrous and embarrassing corruption scandal. in fact,, among the high-profile

instances that we have cited in the context of passing the legislation, or payment solicited by the public works director from recology. it is all quite connected. this is yet another anticorruption measure. frankly, because i talked a little bit about my code of using the ballot as the last resort, the reason this has been set for the ballot is because i worry and have seen these types of policies and laws watered down in the past. and the reason we are putting it on the ballot is because it would create, if approved by the voters, a much higher threshold for watering it down or causing other mischief. that said, there is a potential path to avoiding the ballot for this measure.

i think that must include using our legislative power and that of the ethics commission to move these provisions from one chapter of the code to another chapter specifically chapter 2 of the campaign governmental conduct code where it would be subject to a higher vote threshold to amend by the board of supervisors, in essence, protecting the integrity of the existing ordinance. as regulators received to regulate themselves, those are often the easiest regulations to unravel, one way or the other whether at the ballot, or through collaboration with the ethics commission. i would like to subject us to a higher threshold for amendment. that is the reason it is before us and i wanted to share it publicly and get any feedback from committee members. are there any members of the committee who would like to comment on this item?

supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair peskin. i will say that i was surprised to see this in my binders. as i was looking over the agenda for today because i did think that one of the reasons we had done this at the board was to avoid the necessity of having to go forward to the voters. we still have some items and concerns. there will be a duplicated file floating around there that we would have tried to further address. i'm curious about what prior examples of watering down there has been of prior ethic -- ethics laws passed by the board. >> yes. i can tell you that. as a matter of fact, the class of 2,000's board late in the two

thousands passed a comprehensive ethics reform that were gutted, in part by the board of supervisors that was seated in 2009. that changed the threshold for lobbyists, lobbying reporting, and they have sins largely worked themselves back into the law. they largely gutted something that a lot of people worked on together in a collaborative fashion and was watered down. the file was duplicated. there are some movements afoot that i am engaging in, but dubious about. i think what i am signalling here is if we make any final

tweaks or changes, that we move it to chapter 2 of the campaign in the governmental conduct code and make it more difficult for future boards of supervisors and ethics commissions to water it down or otherwise got it. >> got it. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on item number 9? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been an muted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have eight callers on the line.

let me double check if there is anybody online to speak. there are no callers online to speak. >> public comment is going once, going twice, public comment is closed. i will make a motion to file this item. >> on the motion to file the matter... [ roll call ] motion passes without objection. >> do you have any confirmation before we adjourn in the february 22nd, 2022 at 10:00 am meeting? >> i just need to get final confirmation from various

parties, san francisco government t.v., tech chat and farther -- final approval from the department of the board. my thought is it will proceed as scheduled for the february 22nd meeting at 10:00 am. >> okay. colleagues, mar your calendars. members of the public, it is virtually certain that the items that we continue today as amended will appear on tuesday, february 22nd, 2022 at a special meeting of the rules committee at 10:00 am. we are adjourned.

vice president calling the meeting to order at 3:15. the president will be absent today. vice president? >> commissioner woo ho: yes. >> commissioner brandon: here. >> commissioner gilman: -- >> on mute, but i see her there. madame vice president, you do have a quorum. >> okay. let's move on to the next item. >> the san francisco port commission acknowledges that

we're