>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today monday, july 11, 22. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined by supervisor connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. mr. young could you make your announcements. >> boards are convening hybrid

meetings providing remote public comment via phone. access is essential and take public comment as follows. first public comment will be taken on each item on the agendaful those in person allowed first then those on the phone line. for watching channel 26, 28, 78 or 99 and sfgovtv the public comment number is streaming across the screen 415-655-0001. then enter the id24842226106 and press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be muted and listening mode only. when your item come up and public comment is called, those in person should lineup to speak and those on the phone line should dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on the phone remember

to turn down your television and all listening devices you may be using. we will be taking comment from those attending in person and public comment phone line. alternateively you may send in writing e mail them to myself the rules committee clerk @victoryoung @sfgovtv via e mail tell be forwarded to the supervisors included as part. file. sends written comment u.s. mail at our office city hall 1 doctor carl don b. goodlet place. that completes my comments y. thank you, mr. young i would like to welcome rafael mandelman who joined us. i have a request to cure item 3 out of order.

could you read item 3? >> yes. an ordinance amending the business and tax regulation codes to permit the tact collector make public certain information regarding the vacancy tax and the failure on file vacancy tax returns for tax years 22 and 23. >> okay. colleagues we heard this item on june 27 we dub indicated the file and our hearing some amendments that are suggested by the treasure tax collector's office. the rest of the file will be at the board of supervisors tomorrow. and i would like to welcome mrs. amanda frooed from the tax collector's office. as to the remaining amendment which would wave the pen for

failure to timely file vacancy tax returns for this and next year as we ease in this new tax regimen. mrs. freed the floor is yours >> thank you, good morning supervisors. thank you for having me today. the piece is specific to the filing the filing penalties and just to give a bit of context. the way our business taxes work is that we ask taxpayers to come in and file. that is a fancy way of saying give us information about their business. based on what than i share their taxes are calculated and than i pay it is when we do in april you tell them how much you earnd and they say how much we owe and you pay. we always had in place some penalties for businesses that fail to file.

it is part of their responsibility. so, that is just a standard part of our code apply to business taxes. in looking at the vacancy tax there are a couple things we are we are aware of and wanted to get ahead of. one, it is i new tax whchl we implement a new tax we think who is this challenging for? who might this be confusing for? and often make concessions in the first few years to make it easy for tems to sxnd get used to the new system. with the vacancy tax it is more unique because we have it is in the a one to one relationship. meaning for any given property that falls within the area covered by the vacancy tax you could have several individuals and businesses required to file but some of them might have to pay or 91 of them. that is unique.

you could have a small retail shop and we need to hear from the property owner. we need to hear from the whofsh is leasing the pace and they have a sublease for part or all of the space. each of those need to come in and file every year. that will be confusing. we'll do our best. letters are going out to explain it. we understand that land lords and small businesses might be confused. i'm not vacant why do do this. i don't need to pay attention? we wanted to focus on the first 2 years on finding the businesses that actually ore the vac analysisy tax. and do a lot of out reach and communication to make sure we are not slapping small businesses with 500 dollar pens for not know responding to our notices. when it is new. and they don't know the tax to begin with.

that is why we are here and appreciate all the questions and about this and happy to answer questions that come up. >> thank you, >> thank you for your work on this matter. and your suggestions as to how to ease in. seeing no supervisors on the roster go to public comment on item 3. are there members of the public who would like to comment on this matter? seeing, any remoat commenters. >> yes, for those remote call 415-655-0001. ernd 2842228106 and press pound, pound. you will press star 3 to enter the line. for those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted that will be your queue to begin we have one caller on the line for public comment.

first speaker, please. i'm actually in line to speak on a different item. the item that i thought was going to being first on the agenda. i'd like to be put become in the queue. please. where press star 3 we will circumstantial toll that item next. are there other speakers for this item? there are no other speakers for item 3. >> public comment is closed if there are no comments from members i would like to make a motion to send this to the board with a positive recommendation on this motion a roll call >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. the motion passes without objection.

>> please read item 1? >> yes. item one, is ordinance approving the surveillance technology policy for police departments use of noncity entity surveillance cameras. members of the public who wish to comment on this item when you call for comment lineup. and if you are listening can you call 415-655-0001id is 2842226106, pound, pound then star 3 to enter the line. thank you, mr. young. colleagues and members of the public. chief scott and the police department. let me start by giving a bit of context here. there is a bit of history that

dates back to legislation that the board of supervisors passed a time ago in 2019. to regulate use of surveillance technology. and and -- that was not a san francisco first. there were -- more than half a dozen others that passed similar legislation in the age of all kinds of technological advancements be zones, license plate readers. many not used by law enforcement and in the intervening years many departments brought the use policies forward to the board of supervisors all of which after review by the committee on information technology, we have reviewed and passed and adopted and today we have before us the

one of a number of use policies that are advanced by the san francisco police department. i would like to -- give a bit more context the use policy that legislation that we passed requires basic information. who has access to the data. where the data can be shared. how it is stored. what training individuals who touched the data are required to have. this is done by santa clara county mou around the state of california. we were the 7th if i recall to adopt this legislation and interesting we have not read the item yet but the next item on the calendar is very similar as relating to military grade hardware used by police departments in the state of california, which is state

legislation that is similar to the approach to -- the surveillance legislation. so, but i want to be very clear i think there is misconception in the publicity that i want to clear up now. which is had what is contemplate in the this use policy that is before us is not an expansion of surveillance technology. but is the first time that we had a public transparent consideration of existing use of surveillance technology. this is not an expansion. it is actually a look at the department's current practices. i have i want to tell more about the context, which is after we pass this legislation a number of departments including but not limited to the airport, the

municipal transportation agency brought their policies to the board. some did include such as the mta's the ability to live monitor on cameras. and -- the police have not yet brought their use policy forward a couple of years into after the passage of the legislation and things became contentious you will recall that in the lead up to today, late last year, both the mayor and 4 members of the board put competing measures that were headed to the june, 22 ballot. and -- i think to the good cooler heads prevailed the mayor and the board members with drew their measures from the ballot which would are revisited our

under lying -- policy set fortin code section 19b. we had a robust candid set of negotiations and discussions that largely ended up in the use policy this is before this committee today. there were still outstanding places of -- disagreement. i reserved my right, as one of 11 of the board to revisit those. i think we should talk about them. the public has not yet had a chance to weigh in. we will hear from them today. what i think would be the best source of action begin the public interest and the negotiations is to hear from chief scott and his staff this morning about the use policy that is before us. ask any questions that we want. i will speak to the 2 amendments

that i'm interested in making. but not make them today. to hear from the public and to continue this item one week to our meeting next week where we will have a bit of time for more discussions between this supervisor, mayor's office and the police department. so that's what i would like to do today. and with that, i would like to welcome chief scott and his staff to this committee proceeding. >> good morning. chair peskin. supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. i'm going to open up briefly and then we will have special assistant steeves from the san francisco police department. go through the power point to go

into high level details about what we are trying to accomplish with this ask to the rules committee and the board of supervisors. so over all, as you laid out, with the surveillance ordinance that was adopted on 2019, we have a number of technologies that we had to craft policies around. surveillance cameras are one of the technologies that we over -- since 2019, the past 3 years; freely that with thoughtful amendments we can enhance the public safety of our city. and mainly, there are instances and incident this is happened over the last few years. that really has brought the police department to this point. we had the incident in union square with the mass looting and private security cameras and unable to access because it did not meet the threshold that

existed in the policy. it is a well known fact and -- there is pervasive flowns activity by way of narcotics dealing. in this area surrounding civic center. and -- they are surveillance cameras privately owned throughout this area that the police department is unable to utilize to be more efficient. and more effective and surgical and apprehending those that are committing those acts. we have a tremendous fentanyl crisis in the city the number one killer in the city and hen for a couple years now. we strongly believe the thoughtful use of surveillance within the constitution, within the values of this city will enhance this police department's ability to address that issue in an effective and efficient matter and hopeful low turn the

tide what is going on with that issue. the other thing now with the advent is so many private surveillance cameras throughout the city, for many years. many resident and business ordinance cooperated with the da and the police department after the fact. when we would like to do is be able to and the appropriate circumstances live monitoring, this activity as occurring to have a better chance of app hendzing those committing those acts and preserving evidence and really bring us forward so we can address things role nooim time and not after the fact. il turn it over to steeves who has a brief presentation on our proposal. thank you, chief this . is all happening at a time in our society you know around a

national conversation about surveillance. and we are all aware of what happened in the supreme court's rule nothing roe v wade. that opens another conversation. or job here is to find the sweet spot if you will between the maximum amount of privacy protection and public safety law enforcement tools. so -- >> and i we appreciate that and we are in the same place as far as that. we understand and honor people's privacy and we don't want to preach that the balance is us doing our j.w. more effectively while respecting the privacies we are with the board and you on that issue. we have a presentation that will be loaded remotely. appreciate it. you should have the presentation

in front of you. i'm special project's manager at sfpd. i'm giving you high level recap of the policy that we are put nothing front of you for consideration. 19b code requires a public hearing process to vet and also revise the anthropologists that we are proposing. admin code 19 b requires an impact report and this is what helps create the actual policy itself. so, i out lines the hearings we had. mar 25 a privacy board meeting. another on march 31, recommended to move forward. we had another meeting at coit and april 7th and another april 21st where coit eventual low recommend today to move to the board. the reason come to rules if it

passes through this process. lots of comments a lot of feedback and public hearings we received a lot of comments to tighten our use cases. as well as clear set press on how to request the historical footage and live monitoring. we have 40 policies that will go through the process the tools are surveillance to thes. so far this body has approved our alpr and shot spotter through this process as well. this is a regular process. who are we talking about. the noncity surveillance camera policy. this does not apply to city agency cameras. does not apply to any we have on our buildings. does not apply to anyone we have a financial relationship with. this is our mom and popcorner stores. could be an apartment complex.

could be a business district. could be a shopping mall. where they have cameras. i believe there is a camera on every block in the city. so this gives us the right to request footage or live monitoring from those appeal. noncity entity surveillance camera surveillance we are proposing. authorized use case. this all of this language was tightened up through the hearing the public hearings we held. we are proposing a temporary live monitoring during significant evans with public safety concerns or investigations relating to active misdemeanor and felony. the monitoring will cease and sever in the 24 hours after they provided access to sfpd. before this policy proposed there was no time line.

so this puts parameters around how we access and make this request. through the policy we have requested created a carve out so officers get a captain rank approval before asking the entity itself for access. the entsity always has the right to refuse. if they do and we think there is probable cause we can seek a warrant through courts and have a judge sign it. the entsity can always say, no. the second is, obtaining and reviewing historical video footage to gather evidence relevant to a criminal investigation. third is requesting and reviewing historical video for purposes of gathering evidence relevant to an internal investigation regarding officer misconduct. >> as to obtaining content issue how does the pd do that like i know it is set fourth in the documents that some cities have

a voluntary registry. and what is the duration of that consent and how is it revoked? is it affirmative action of the consentee to sends an e mail? how does that work. >> thank you. what we put in the officer guess to the captain if we are talking about live monitoring. >> how do you this is all basically opt in. the store owner has a camera that you want to access, they have to give you permission. how does this part work? >> sure. there are 2 different talking about either temporary or historical footage. historical footage, what we proposing is to update a form we have, which is a permission to search form. that form exists now. but about property does not have anything to do with video we are adding that a line for video

footage that would be given to the store owner sxshg it is store owner would sign their consent. and we valid that. also we document that in our incident report to report out on how many questions we made in a year. that's historical footage. the same for temporary live monitoring. this would have a captain rank approval first and be a request to search we like to create after approved, a more specific form that tracks the temporary live monitoring to track that as well. and how does that work in practice and if i'm one of those owners and i say, yes. does that last for a limited time duration

or does it last forever until i revoke it. if i do, how does that work. we are not planning on creating a registry. it sounds like that's what other municipalities do they have registry when is we can a list of camera owners and tap in. the da used to have that. this is not that. we are not trying to create a registry. it is based on a survey of responding to an incident. because we are responds to a 911 call. and surveying the scene and seeing if that owner would gives access or historical footage we are not creating a registry. >> chief? >> i add this is case specific. if we have a problem of -- burglaries in a store and our investigator see a pattern and go to that store who has surveillance and say, we would like to have access to cameras

we have a pattern that we think it will help. they go to that retailer and for a specific purposes to ask for permission. in the case of narcotics dealing. we have certain thoughts on this in our city. where it is pervasive. with the community input, with friends arrests over doses or the data we have, that is what would inform the request. and then there are parameters on the back end. steve's -- in a presentation as far as how long that authorization lasts for. why this is very helpful and it occurs to me that -- we might want to be specific that we are not contemplating a registry. and we may also it does not say that in here temperature is silent. but it sounds like -- this is not preapproval. say there was a circumstance

happening. what you say is that in practice what you would do is you would go to the st. francis hotel and say, we want a review a live monitor because something is going on down despairsment to see and would you give us access now? compared to we have knowledge of 200 cameras and any time we can sit here at headquarters and access one and light up that corner but it sounds more like this is a real time situation where you will knock on a door and say, can we look through your camera now. >> that is correct and specific to the facts that are informing this request. not -- no audio. just a blanket approval joechl you think setting this forth. and bite way when we have the

conversations and we play through certain things, i become more clear. setting this out in the policy might e lay fears and concerns about access. so. let's hold that thought. we have a week to talk about it. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> okay. next slide. i will get them back up. so this is also to demonstrate when we were talking about. this is the flow of historical footage request, a crime happens. than i call 911 we respond. control may survey and see if there are cameras. ask the store owner for footage. many companies have policies they can't give over the historical footage and need a warranty if they say yes, we take the footage just the footage related the incidents. if than i say no we will have

the video retrieval officers to seek in a warrant and come back and get the evidence video footage. it go in an investigation file. again it is evidence now and part of the investigation. so -- we go and corroborate with witnesses and interviews. there is another form that tracks this. a prop 115 form a da's form. that is another tracking of the people allowing the historical footage. to mirror what the chief is saying a case specific reason for historical footage because an incident happened. very tiny font. here is more examples relate to a live footage request. we have a few reasons why we want to have access to temporary live monitoring. one is if there is a large

events. we want to know what the crowds are looking like. where they are moving. what the behaviors are. whether we need to deploy assets and officers on the grounds. the alternate to that is just physical presence of officers and multiple officer on the grounds. the temporary live monitoring allows us to have a 5,000 foot view of the crowd and how to manage it. >> by the way if you make this part of public record this . is mall and 91 of us can read. i read it you printed one out. but that would be great so people can look at it in the next week send that to the clerk, that will be great. >> supervisor chan. thank you. chair. i have a question specifically about the definition of significant public like events and safety occurrence. men i miss today in the

language. could you help me point to the that defines. and it says thousands is there somewhat of a threshold. some event actually have permits, right and than i submit an application. of course, others like prosecute test or you know -- then you would not have. i am trying to, understand is there clear language for both. clear definition on special events and a clear threshold for crowd size. >> certainly. >> page 11 of your policy has definitions. and it has the definition of significant events. listed out. we have defind today the large or high profile even in the city traffic company, barricades and

crowd management. special investigations. escorts for home land security unit. sf opposite a sign to stop terror or criminal attacks may require efforts during the efforts based on activity during live monitoring allows for aware ness and coordinate resources based on information obtained. that is the definition of significant evans in terms of a threshold we did not define that simply because with protests and we will in the slides we talk to get more in the detail busy that. but there are counter protests and there are no matter the side there can be an i have lent counter protest. and if we left it to a threshold we would not be able to

temporary live monitor. home land security talks about national white supremacist or organizing really well and effectively on the line. right now to handle all protests. now. so -- if we limit today to the size. say it was a 30% march and a proud boy plan to deal with it, we would have to wait until they it unfolded or when injuries or fatalities reported. we wanted to make sure we were able to keep peaceful protests peaceful. thank you. i agree the size perhaps at times does not matter if it is a small grouch people if they are violent. it is a problem no matter what. i think that i agree what chair

peskin said in the beginning of the conversation that it is like how do we reach the balance between i look forked to the rest of the presentation to protect the first amendment as well as balancing public safety concern. i am eager to see how can we in language to further define these events. how would that carry out and would appreciate in your presentation to point to specific example if you could. thank you. will i'm not sure if we need more on this slide. >> thank you. retention. this is another thing that 19 b rivers to be out lines in the policies we talk about the data retention. data retention had it miss to video footage because the video

footage is considered evidence. it is beholdant to california penal code evidence code and even statute of limitations. what we draft in the our language is this we will keep the video footage like we would with evidence and tied to the crime. so we need enough time for the investigation and then if a homicide we keep the evidence long are than a misdemeanor. we give more of a demonstration and illustrate why we would keep video footage. they are in protected files. they are not available to the public. it is our investigative file. next slide. first amendment activities. this is and was important and all of our discussions with the hearings this were held through

coit. sfpd's prop to handling of public dem tragsz has 2 components. facilitying and upholding first amendment and ensuring public safety. if it is peaceful it is protected. we than protests are important. it is our job as law enforcement to ensure the rights of peaceful protesters. there are situations where other groups will infull trait and create chaos. cocktails are thrown and there are injuries, there are large crowds, there are barricades broken. there are store fronts broken into. that is in the a first amendment activity t. is our job as law enforcement to ensure that everyone has the right to demonstrate and express themselves. but we have to maintain the peace that is a balance we have to strike within this policy.

so with the -- our own policies also that00 autodepartment has policies through the police commission and heavy public process stake holders provide recommendations we have our own policy internally that was adopted bite police commission that shows us or tells us how to deal with first amendment activities. we are leaning on that to furthermore how we will handle first amendment activity. that first line relates to the approved dgo. we can conduct criminal investigations when well is a reasonable suspicion to believe. and this is out lined there. we would like temp refer live monitoring for purposes of deployment and addressing criminal activity or public safety hazards. we are not monitoring the crowd.

i should make it clear the live monitoring is not recorded we are monitoring if there is a crime that takes place we would go back and ask historical footage the live monitoring is actual when will is sounds like. monitoring the cameras. not a large aim of data that come back to track who was at the protest. if there are questions? no , i gallon back to retention. and -- i'm not going to do it today i will leave it for our discussions but i want to raise my interest inmenting to tight retention period for surveillance footage to retention periods set forth in state law it it is a change but

the prosecute pose to retention period seems arbitrary and might lead to stockpiling of footage in a way not necessary we can deal had in the next week >> we are agreeable to that. amendment. as long as it lines with evidence laws we are agreeable. >> great. >> next slide, please. prohibitions this is not the entire list. more robust list. listed in the policy wee wanted to highlight we -- have veteran thought where we do not want to live monitor or don't want to impede on people's rights to navigate the world as they see fit. so we are prohibited from monitoring groups or individuals based on race. gender or sexual orientation. race may not be used as a factor

for initiating please action. prohibited from accessing live feed during first ma'am activities reasons out of redeploy am needs. and members shall not use surveillance footage in cooperation with or arc cysteding u.s. immigration or customs or customs and boarder protection in investigation or arrest procedures public. where any such instance the expressor purpose is the enforcement of federal immigration laws. san francisco is 12h and i and have our own dgo mentioned before adopted bite police commission and went through public process. i believe there was a working group with that one. with how to deal with enforcement with immigration we have to comply with that as well.

19b requires we note any training required. or that keeps the data safe. i wanted to make it clear thata our officers have a lot of training and where relates to live feed or video feed i wanted demonstrate that there is a lot of training around the civil learnt's impacts that are around you know video footage and live monitoring. so,or officers are required take laws of arrest, search and seizure. presentation of evidence. crime in process. incidents crime scene and forensic. discrimination and terrorism and here say testimony. and cyber security training offered throughout city and our department offers mind set response training. 810 is first amendment

activities. they have hatrain and a video retrieval training i 2 day training for the video retrieve and crowd control training and [inaudible] training. next slide. thank you and i mean it sincerely over dialogue we had over the last several months. and i think the spirit of this honors the first amendment and honors privacy. where the rubber hirts the road is what happens in practice. right that is why training is important and the policy in 19b requires you to speak to this, this looks like probust training one thing that is not -- i skipped ahead to -- your next slide that is not addressed is -- what happen in practice? which is -- what are the internal accountability

mechanisms for what happen when is the chain of command breaks down and somebody violates the spirit of the policy or the letter of the policy. what does the department do to ensure accountability? let the chief talk about discipline. thank you, chair peskin. the accountability proisz, for any rules violations get can and will initiate a personnel complaint investigation. that is handled by internal affairs division the other per of this because of 19 b and the report thanksgiving goes with this, is that the logs and anything having to do with surveillance by design of the ordinance you weigh on. is -- logd and it is transparent

to the public. the impact reports a part of was explained by the part of the process. but for if a member of the public believes a violation occurred there is i process internal and ecsternally in terms of bringing that to light and the investigation internal low will be done by internal affairs. this process is only as good as the systems we put in place to make sure that we don't wait until there is an incident to address it all the forms that have been created and some need to be developed, if this gets passd and we see what it looks like, there will be a strict reporting process for this the last thing we want to do is break the confidence of the public and the board and anybody else that has a stake in this. by not having the processes to

monitor and be able to not whether or not we are following the rules. those processes are forming and -- once this if it passes, whatever passes we will then be able to finalize that process. so those processes are tight, strict. and we can go about our business in an initiate manner. >> thank you, chief. >> i want to point out on page 11 in the actual policy it talks about the sanctions. so that's out lined and piggyback on what the chief was saying once this is approved we have to issue a written notice to notify staff this is now a policy. and we will be an ordinance, right? we have to work with the academy to see how to train on this policy if passed. and -- next slide. i believe this is our last of

slide. but 19 b also requires the impact report and this is where, you know we have the civil learnt's considerations that is all placed in the impact report. i wish it could be in the policy but it is a separate document. impact report where we consider the civil liberty's immack and when we impacted the right to privacy. equal protection of the law and mitigating measures to address the potential impacts. that is the separate report not up for approval but it is it goes along with this policy. i believe that is it. >> thank you for that. i don't know if there are questions or comments from committee members. i wanted to daylight the other amendment that i am good in of,

which is excising the live monitoringef for with privately owned cameras. during active misdemeanors and felonies. and it sounds as you use this in practice the reality is, well is a call. you are probably i understand it in significant circumstances i understand -- that -- it is always been departmental policy in significant events. but i'm worryd that could lead to monitoring of folks who don't think they are monitord and in practice you are knocking to say can we access your camera now. i'm00 eye think that that could allow for constant live monitoring we can cross that

bridge in the week and the chief and i had a good discussion about it this morning. but if there are no questions or comments from members at this. supervisor mandelman. >> i am trying to not that. of as -- well, yea. you have been looking at this more closely than i have. live monitoring during investigations i assume that is, what we are really talking about when the rubber hirts the road here is drug dealing. and i think that -- the 8 to pull historic footage can give the cops what they need in making a case. that is one. two, the chief and i discussed, the which requires a bit of research on the pd's part.

historically. this policy only deals with third party private cameras. the please use their own cameras. we don't have that policy yet. in dealing with i'm going back a few years but cameras in police vans that were used for prostitution and arrests and drug dealing crimes. we needed xrieration there. i'm worried that when you say active misdemeanors means you turn on cameras anywhere. you turn them on all the time that might go past the sweet spot. and they can pull historic footage to make a case. chief. >> thank you. in the case of of the dealing and usage. open air drug usage is a problem

as dealing is. and there are locations across the city in this area and the civic centers and across the city it is pervasive. we get a ton of community complaints. and able to see enclaves where people do that activity. is helpful. and us being able to address it but the other thing is also it goes beyond the drug dealing. we have locations in the city where we have gun violence that is pretty pervasive and -- traditionally, there are intersections and corners we see the same thing repeated over and over. if we have information, about the possibility of shooting and ingredients are there for this event to happen. to me it just makes sense to tap

in if surveillance cameras are there that are privately owned tap in if we have good information that the requests. the notion is you think it will happen not useful to have police around watching what is happening. but you want to respond in real time because someone showed up you know wouns see that person show up you know somebody will get shot. >> right. we think it will help we will up or deployment and we will still do that but the other part of this if it does happen. to be able if you have the access to video feeds and having vehicle descriptions and suspect descriptions and things you get out in role time. is very helpful and makes us

effective. those are things that are helpful and we want to make sure to supervisor chan and supervisor peskin and yours as well. we left lane is a balance and want to strike that balance but not ignore the 8 to tap in technology that the help the public safety of the city. >> we'll all talk. >> thanks. why don't we go to and chief i know you gotta run. go ahead and we will convene in the intervening week and see you or your command staff next week. um -- why don't we open up to public comment for item one. >> one moment. members of public when wish to peek and joining in person lineup to speak along the wall. if you are joining us via telephone you can press star 3 at this time to enter the line. you will be in listening mode

only. once for those in the queue continue to wait until you are unmuted and that will be your queue to begin. we have 14 callers on the line. i don't see anybody in the room for public comment at this time. we have 14 on the line for public comment. first speaker, please? i'm alexi i'm speaking as a 32 year residents of district 8. first i'm shocked that the police chief would be excused from lynching to the public's comment this is extremely disappointing. staff is here for the second time. >> not good enough j. i'm here for the second time to express my strong opposition to the surveillance related proposals

being considered by the board. the san francisco police department proposal proves again that it is bounds and determineed counter man the will of the people. the people they are pid and pledged to serve. and are now take to institutionalize their past unacceptable behavior and violate privacy rights. 60% of san front voters opposed police access to live monitoring of private cameras. i need to understand how a single merchant store camera will give them a quote, 30,000 foot view of the public event. the police department needs to confront the past. why did it survil me while i was protesting george floyd's murder by police? they need to address these issues before the chief worries about losing trust.

he lost it. and -- they need to address that before they seek to implement these policies. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello this is magic @man it ironic the chief brings how he ksdz not access the union square cameras for looting and illegal accessed them during the black lives matter prosecute test x. there was a suit against theys the united states court said the fourth amendment presents conducting electronic surveillance involving person present in the united states without a search warrant. can we go become at this time search warrant for all. if you ask an individual business in an area, for looking at camera and they say know you

think the police will be kind in helping the people in the future. we don't want to pay for our government to spy. i lived long enough to remember we were appalled how russia was spying on people. there is no sweet spot here. the whole thing leaves a bad taste and we want our representatives to not get us the pay to be spied on. this whole discussion you are calmly and nicely talking to each other is appalling we don't want your spies. we don't want to be watched we don't want anything but a search warranty if proved to be important. and i'm just appalled at the whole discussionch it is another thing from mayor greed and her corporated cronies wanting to protect themselves. thank you. next caller.

hello. i'm a coordinator for the council on american relations sudden fran bay office. our office involved with pushing for the passage of the san front surveillance ordinance and recognition ban. this is this proposal is concerning because you know the idea of getting local thousands of local -- cameras to be providing live feed of footage, it is definitely concerning. because and i know that you know if the city were to acquire thousands of surveillance cameras, this would be like on their own this would be concerning proposal. this is, this is exactly that is happening. we'll have access to thousands of cameras of footage for a

time. and it is concerning to our privacy if there are prosecute tests. first amendment prosecute test and people who are living their daily lives or accessing reproductive healing or attending mosques or church services or what not. people don't want to have their movements monitored. i'm speak against this proposal. this is concerning and i hope that the board will consider this a concern as well. thank you. why thank you. before we call on the next speaker. one of the public comments i will -- say that -- the lawsuit that was brought over the monitoring at the floyd george floyd protest was one by the city and lost by the aclu.

next speaker, please. >> good morning i live in district 8. and i work at a private college in the city. i'm firmly opposed policy this expands police surveillance in i have lalgz of our civil rights. upon giving the live access to monitor citizens poses a threat to our first amendment right to privacy and freedom of speech. this policy is currently written is an extreme case of over reach and a privacy risk for all and visitors track in the role time going about their daily lives. i think this policy has the potential to be abused. broad range of t and unfairly targets protesters, black and brown communities come anyone seek an abortion or gender affirming heck. this would cause a ripple affect

across state and federal law enforcement agencies who could gain access and target citizens. therefore, i urge the board of supervisors to further refine this proposal and protect our civil rights. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning to all member of the rules and everyone in attendance. i'm [inaudible] a 47 year resident of the mission. in district 8 but in district 9 recently. and i wanted call to register my strong opposition to this surveillance policy. and i continuing come down to whether you trust the san francisco police department or whether you trust the aclu. both of home oppose this law this legislation that is proposed today.

i would ask supervisor peskin, chan special mandelman who side they think is right about what the concerns are here and what the likely impact of this policy are? do they think it is the aclu with long history of standing up for civil liberties and close working relationship with peskin, i know or do they think it is sudden front police department which has a long history of monitoring survilling protests arresting peaceful protesters as mentioned by a couple of callers the black lives matter protest in 2020 they arrested peaceful protesters not involved in looting or fire setting or anything and including ones who were protesting on the last day or the state of emergency. that the mayor and the board of supervisors went ahead and instituted to make sure that protesters could be rested. they arrested a reporter.

and loyaled about arresting that reporter i don't understand why you would trust the police department. chief scott had no answer on the accountsability question supervisor peskin asked if you can't get a right answer you cannot vote. >> can we have our next caller. hi. i'm leah and i am a local small business owner. in the city in district 8. in the mission and this is whack. i'm sorry. like as a small business owner i'm hearing this like, about you know, how they want to tap into our cameras. i say, like, i don't have cameras for this reason. i don't trust anyone in a position of authority or power in the city to not abuse it and

blindsly give this authority to cops and so i never got cameras. i stands by that and will condition to not have cameras because i don't believe that surveillance is appropriate or effective in any preventing crimes and also -- sfpd is a bunch of bs i walked past 7 officeros my street that had a young gentlemen in cuffs and one guy and he was harmless. he may be crashed his car. there was not damage a bunch cops and getting frustrated my tax dollars going to this bs come oshg man. you know they are stand thering getting paid i don't knowment to know how much. probably make me more mad and i'm paying for it and you are we are all paying for it and they are doing nothing.

i'm done. this is whack. that's it. don't do it. >> thank you. next caller. hi. good morning i'm carolyn and calling on behalf of the know front public defender's office who is a member of the san francisco surveillance coalition. thank you chair peskin for continuing this today our office is concerned with the proposed sfpd surveillance policy as written. and urges chair peskin and the committee to work with the coalition this week to add further amendments to ensure the policy protects communities from surveillance and over [inaudible]. the current policy gives police power to monitor live surveillance and check historical footage with few limitations. we hope the policy be amended limit the ability of police to

collect footage for trivial offenses and large events it is critical it be amended protect first amendment activity. we feel the police must be ban friday sharing with federal agencies particularly in the post [inaudible] world. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning rules this is paulina a san francisco resident concerned about public safety. i am in support of this ordinance. this is not an expansion of current legislation. it is something we should be able to do. it is not broad monitoring of our life it applies to specific important circumstances including officer misconduct. business owners can opt in or not. people who own private cameras must consent. this is not a registry it is

access where appropriate in this case [inaudible]. there are important time limitos how long the footage is retained. this is not violate the first amendment. peaceful protests are protected. there has been a lot of thought begin about where not to live monitor. officer training is extensive. people who oppose this really, irrelevant exageerate what it means they flat out lie. so, i callow to support this if you care about public safety. thank you. >> thank you next speaker. >> can you hear me okay in proceed. on this item if you could post the police department presentation as soon as

possible. that would be great. on page 12 of the main dpoument page 18 of the packet, the address for the department of police accountability is listed as one vaness i believe it should be 1 south vaness and if this could be fixed. that would be great. and page 20 the one page city add administrator memo is dated may 18, 2021 i believe that should be mi18, 2022 i think it men important in the future for these dates to be correct on the approvals so if those 2 things can be updated, fixed, changed that will be great. i would include the date and the name of the captain or higher rank who approves a request to surveill in the file not the board file in the investigative file. may be make that a written approval and not just i got it

on the phone here is what it was but have them sign something or include the copy of the actual warrant signed by a judge. these are public records than i may be subject to redaction and or nondisclosure they should all be together in the investigation file related whatever incident gives rise to all of this. besides it is policies on the police department website i would post a document know balancing public safety with privacy. somewhere to the discussion you are having now. i'm not interested in disclosing sources and methods but in referred retention and disclosure with minimal hasz and he will consider the balance and w here and am thinking more about the discussion this morning therapy made this it is not a simple issue. at all. >> having another week is great. thanks. >> i am informed there be

trouble with sfgovtv can you check. why we will double check. there are no issues i have confirmation from sfgovtv and i'm watching it on my phone and

appear to be okay. >> thank you. proceed. >> next speaker. hi. i'm kristina from district 1 i lived here for in the city for over 30 years. i absolutely appalled by this that we already spoken out about this when londzon reed tried to get this passed the first time now they are back again. there is no reason yet police can't get a search warrant for any time they need this footage. the way that this is written, the regulations or the limits on it are much too weak. and we already know we can't trust the police they have illegally surveyed people in peaceful protests.

and this is just arc stonishing to me. we know based on the last couple of weeks in this country that there are situations where other states can request the footage that is stock pile exclude use it immigrants etch we know this suspect a terrible idea we mead to make sure there are proper safe guards before we pass any type of initial surveillance rules for the police. we need to get our police in check. where we can allow them access to video surveillance of citizens there is no reason why -- citizens should be surveilled going about their daily lives. thank you. >> next speaker.

hi. i'm [inaudible] i oppose the expansion of surveillance equipment by sfpd it lacks measures to protect civil liberties as written the policy breaches people's rights including ability to obtain reproductive care the freedom to protest and live life without under surveillance. let's keep it real. these are powerful weapons this will help with the prosecution of people seek abortions anyone who helps them and gender affirming care. don't let this happen. intalling cam ares to surveill people intrefrs with freedom tom go on about their lives not normal to live under surveillance and totally unjustifyed normal i'llize being monitored. who has access and can this be used to in criminal or civil court. how is it okay to hover data on people stored to be used against

them in the future? onbillion people's dast a. don't be that guy. what's the i'm sorry but trinning and retraining does not cut it. the community impact assessment is lacking and out lining negative externalalities don't credit a system when it is in the san front residents and visitors and workers deserve better. thank you. the stated desire of sfpd to

respect privacy is not enough. saying we will develop policies after the bill pass system in the acceptable. the law has to reintroduce the power and instituted to enable the abuses. i was horrifyed learn that peaceful protester during the george floyd protest a dprendz is myself were spied for doing peaceful protest. i was spied on for nothing. this is what you mean by live monitor and situational awareness? and when [inaudible] scores a peaceful mission and journalist in full view during the protest the next day this was reason suspicion. they have not earned public trust and should not be rewarded. sf claims to be a sanctuary city

but we are considering a bill and put in future enforce a federal abortion ban. let's may be not do that. thank you, next speaker. >> good morning. [inaudible] i'm a residents of district 8. landmark ordinance passed in twenty 19 requires that the board may pass a surveillance technology policy ordinance, only if the determines the ordinance the ordinance authorizes out weighs the cost and the policy is will safe guard civil rights. the current proposal fails to meet the standard and burden should consider amendments to protect san francisco private and rights. first, the board should curtail

the access to live monitoring. it is an expansion the current policy allows live monitoring during circumstances. this proposal will expand the standards allowing for on going felony or violation to be live surveilled. this happened to police surveillance and would further criminalize communities. which is vaguely high profile events the protests or religious live monitoring. the rule could allow the board safe guard footage every request specific to a date come location of an incident androus the two-year period to ensure

footage of people engaging every day activities may not be used for other purposes the board should present sharing footage with out of state and federal agencies. there are other issues we [inaudible] in a letter and happy to enengage in dialock log the communities organizations and public must be a part of this discussion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. of chair peskin and supervisors i'm brian here on behalf of secure justice. happy to hear you will not approve as written today there are too many missing guard rails. many improve ams have been made in the on going spirit is encouraging, live monitoring unrestricted third party data sharing and retention create a

liberty concern. with transparency measures appreciated there are gaps in the policy. for youing you can. policy contemplates node to obtain consent, there is no obligation the fact pattern to the public justifying the need. tell be difficult if not impossible to whether the use in the confines of the policy. the policy requires no disclosure regarding the historical footage request treated like live stream category. in oak land opd live stream policy and drone require the fact pattern leading to the use provided to the bodies look the privacy commission and council and included with the report so the public can discern whether the use was warranted. this draft stated it be documentd and visible for audit that first requires a dmanltd and the policy is [inaudible] the fact pattern rivered to be

disclosed. if through disclose nurse oak land we discover violations, without this requirement we likely would not have known. another policy oversight is allowing the use of data used by nons footwork entities if you authorize a certain number of uses indicated bright by the policy any sharing should be tied to the uses. if another use was not appropriate for you, why would you be comfortable with another agency using it for this purpose. we understand the desire to use technology. speaker time e lapsed. thank you. next speaker, please. hello i'm melanie. i have lived in san francisco for 13 years. i am a resident of district 8.

i believe this is a giant mistake. i you a few reasons why. one things i'm breaking in the [inaudible] design field. i feel that some of things that have been said about user opting in is not straightforward at all. and that happened to be a ring door bell use and not sure how to opt out of the police monitoring my camera in live time. i say this is not in the company's interests to make this straightforward to users. had is the root of the issue . making money and a profitable design scheme so users are not

sure how to use the systems and that -- different agencies -- the way than i are contracted make money. that's what i think is going on here. and i'm concerned as a resident. because -- this will also impede on civil learnts. and in the future i do believe that there is a lot of potential for use of ai. technologies to be used. ai have been proven to be biassed the leader of the [inaudible] algorithm justice league -- [inaudible] has said that ai technology are traind and correct low id white males and unfirly label. >> speaker time e lapsed. thank you. can we have the next caller.

thank you for your leadership on this issue. be clear. sfpd principle is unpress dents in the history allow the first time to create a program to co-op private cameras on homes and business and organizations for sweeping live surveillance. this proposal raises civil liberty concerns and concerns in addition to those energid by supervisor peskin a summary of 3 more. the proposal allows police of core [inaudible] activity. political prosecute tests. due to gaping holes in the policy protections. proposal also allows to share footage. they could turn over stock piled sometime stamped footage to prosecutors prosecute other

states. fails to set the [inaudible] this has been discussed a bit and because of this officers unclear how they will obtain access. whether the access request will be coercive and this places as we heard federal business owner and residents under pressure and disincentivizes cooperation with authorities. it is unpopular. 60% of november 2022 voters oppose the exact thing tht police are seeking to obtain authority for. if we care about reproductive justice and stopping police violence and protecting activists we must do everything to bolster privacy protections not build more surveillance. city surveillance law creates the pace to have a public debate and thankful for this and thank firefighter for supervisor peskin's leader should in

crediting the law. but the board has to protect rights that's what we are asking you to do. thank you for your time and look forward to seeing next steps. etch good afternoon. good morning remember i'm [inaudible] with the san francisco public racial justice committee. i appreciate that aaron peskin is moving this to next week. i think that is the only way that this wagz can situation can be resolved i wish the police would define events. [inaudible] the maximum of 90 days. not 30 days. and [inaudible] the chief talk about efficacy and efficiency.

and complain the [inaudible] circumstances were restricting the police. circumstances are the only way to preserve people's rights. there needs to be clear limitos police access to third party. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> good morning. tracie from hope and private assess. want to point to 3 areas of concern about the current iteration of the policy. first, the retention of historical footage. if you request a piece of footage it has evidence on it related it an incidents or it didn't. approximate it has evidence there are procedures to store house that evidence. if it doesn't, the current policy says can you keep it for

2 years regardless. even though there is nothing on it. we don't understand this. there is no reason for it and if there is no evidence of a crime the footage should be dumped. as quickly as possible. second low, i'm not going on and on about the out of state share nothing this day and age. deeply problematic. activities that are legal in our city are being criminalized and in other states and out of state law enforce am agencies have different policy and different motivations than we do. there is no reason to share third party cam are footage with out of state agency when is we cannot control how that footage is going to be used. thirdly, real time monitoring temperature has been talked about over and over but in court we found out that 2 times it had been done with the union square

cameras the racial justice protest in 2020 and the 2019 pride event. those are both first protected activities. we don't have record of sfpd using the cameras for crimes. just prosecute tests we need to keep this in minds. we have a circumstance cluz this is adequate as is and idea this misdemeanor >> speaker time elapsed. >> thank you. next caller. >> good morning chair approximate supervisors senior policy manager for glide on blafl of the organization and look step wither partners in the sf surveillance coalition and other civil rights and justice organizations we urge you to

oppose or significantly amend sfpd's proposal. as written, it is a threat to our right and it would lead to further over policing abuse and discrimination. we know our concerns are shared by members of the board. at police commission meeting it is department has been unable to answer questions about rishl desfarity in a culture unwilling to change. sfpd has a record of harmful and discrimination surveillance and operate in de9s of revving lalgzs enforces the need for strong oversight of police surveillance. i mentioned this a pole shows that voter in san francisco support alternative approaches to public safety that don't rely on surveillance or police and other callers mention third degree as well. this is so many of our

communities robbery harmed by policing and under no certain circumstances should sfpd unchecked surveillance powerhouse, thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller. >> hi. i'm hall a resident of d 7 and member of the aclu. a volunteer of arab wran americans. all of home other organizations oppose this proposal. in that later. documents abuse of camera networks and cam are networks and i got tell you activist it is are aware that they survil

nun violent protests as they do 2 weeks ago. we should not make surveillance a first, amendment expression easier. this is also the same department that sick months ago confused the difference with victims and suspects using information from rip kit for sense. victim privacy and how it applies to surveillance condition be trusted. the second theme. sfpd referred and storage would increase the data that can be shared with external law enforcement agencies include nothing states now tasks to rest women seeking an abortion. there are significant riskless the gentleman will have a different understanding of frip then and there we have in california and san francisco. best way to stop share suggest to make sure the information did sd in the exist. i urge you to vote no.

thank you. >> thank you. next caller. hello i'm jason i'm a residents of district 9 and lived in the mission for over 18 years and san francisco for 24. i want to support and affirm a lot of my fellow neighbors previously commenting calling for skepticism of san francisco police department and promoting more surveillance. specific low i want to encourage the rules committee to be more skeptical. there are a lot of questions asked. and considerations this node to be worked out. one thing we hear is you then and there is an issue of trin and they will have to trin their receives to understands how to implement this new surveillance policy. san francisco police are already

being trin in the a variety of topics and training just in may we resulted in sfpd people in a night fight, a lot of the officers that were on the scene had cries intervention trin and was documented in the public town hall. again, we need to take a look what is the training. how the trin suggest administered the consequences for in the following the training. that is hai have and a pluthera of other questions this don't have answers. i highly encourage the board of supervisors and the rules committee to be more skeptical of sfpd and stop praising sfpd during calls haare specific low about accountability. we don't need praise we need skepticism. thank you. >> thank you. >> next caller.

i'm am a resident of district 1. thank you very much for holing this hearing no one has yet to know how live monitoring prevent the events like the mass the shooing like the store in union square propped the reasons for need to reform this law. it is treated like a silver bullet. i have have been in the control room of the business improve am district and seen they have access to hundreds if in the thousands of cameras and i'm not sure how creating a willing infrastructure of police having live access to the cameras would prevent the crimes happen in less than seconds. unless you have a person watching each of the cameras all of the time it is more likely police wait for a call and to dispatch and request permission to the cameras and the crime will have happened. the beginning the day i don't

see how the prime case touted for this change in the bill would be useful at all other than to do the type of live monitoring that has been concerned about on the calless. thank you. for lynching and have a good day. next caller. >> hi this is renee. newly residents in district 7. used to be 5. i want to join in the comments of those who oppose this chilling proposal as written. this is a police department who is not accountsable to the public chief appointed by a mayor not account okay to the public and openly hostile to anyone who opposed her a mayor who does not disclose her

accysts i'm insulted by the chief's assertions. we know the police have yet to be held ash counsel okay for beast and killing black people. withhold hold them accountable the new da brooshg. i don't think so. we are really in a -- an in the city that is -- extremely frightening after the gerrymandering, the da recall. work stoppage by the police who helped this recall along. we need to be extremely careful and anything that we provide to the police. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi. i'm lowon hoover in district 8 in opposition to the policy it have been insufficiently vetted.

i want to everyone thatting the committee for continue thanksgiving and ask the next week you min medicaly support ma'ams prevent sfpd from sharing with outside agents and [inaudible] stop sfpd stockpiling footage and guarantee sfpd is held accountable regard thanksgiving program and the public has access to information how it is used the program in the policy is intensify police surveillance jeopardizing our first amendment rights i'm not convinced they will respect the rights of peaceful protesters. without clearly defining circumstances in the first place. circumstance fpb record cannot be ignored and understanding the impact of this policy. >> thank you. >> thank you. next caller.

hello this is tess. district 5. i'm with the aclu and the other callers concerned about this unprecedentsd and previously opposed police introugz in public lives. every time the police in our city and other cities are begin more powers, mull than i get used against people who are black and brown. somehow they get used against people who are gay or different or religiously differents. somehow, and -- i points out that the department of justice had some 250 recommendations requirements for the city police to do to show reperform and they have implemented a mere handful of those. i watch in the horror the

community video of the police who arrived at the scene of 2 men fighting one with a knife. and they tried interventions within 10 minutes than i lined up a few feet away and shot them dead. you want me to give trust to people like that. no. we need to be careful about the police department not guilty it show its is concerned about public safety. and not about attacking the minority of choice and protecting itself. thank you very much. >> next caller please. upon hello i live in district 8 and opposed this policy.

an expansion of surveillance the a time when procedure is strips right system daufrngs. and the city has the footage that put it hacan be requested by other jurisdictions, states including state hos are putting public bountyings catching people who are aids and arc betting abortion. it it is a real scene this would enable. tap nothing private cameras to monitor citizens describes distaupian scenes. the surveillance impact report significant can events when sfpd street closes and crowd management describes many event in the city. the surveillance impact report includes riots. when sfpd use as live surveillance riot applies to any protest that the police don't

like. black lives matter to the white night riots. supervisor mandelman your constituents don't want this surveillance. the proposed policy limits first amendment activity it does not actually do so. the impact report lists wherevero dollars for training recovers on the policy this would require special training and one of the only people who was in favor and callers in favor of this claim that police officers get lots of trinning, no, they don't and no they don't plan to take the gravity of this policy seriously. this will never be a good policy for the city doing it in light of other events happening is a bad idea. continue it say in and push this policy off. thank you. >> thank you. next caller.

>> i'm michael in district 8 in coal valley i'm calling to thank the rules committee for postpone thanksgiving decision until next week and to urge the committee to continue to oppose this unnecessary overly broad expansion of sfpd's surveillance abilities. i understand under current laws pd with the search warrant request from cameras they need to investigate a crime. this proposal they would have unlimited access to live security footage from all manner of cameras across the city. and i think,een if you trust them to always do the right thing, you can tell, many in san francisco do not. you have to ask yourself in a policy like this, how will this be abused and hol abuse it.

technology will be abused by people who have the ability to do it in this case you allow pd to credit a data base of surveillance footage. that others account access. may be other state agencies from outside of california. may be federal agencies like home land security. and you have to ask who would be hurt by sharing that footage this is unnecessary and i think the people of san francisco historically have opposed measures like this we thinked the right to necessary rights to privacy. not a hypothetical if they are e rode today is happening at the federal level and this would erode the local level have you the 8 to stop that. don't give in to this the current situations are adequate they get the footage they need

without going against our rights. >> thank you. >> next caller. >> good afternoon. supervisors i'm marshall and i'm calling today to oppose the concern surveillance policy. in today's agenda. this proposal does not reflect the views of the community. and tell result in the surveillance and control of over criminalized communities of color. the currently policy allows the police to share with federal agencies and other states that may be engaged enforcing antiabortion laws. if we care about reproductive justice the police must not share footage with other agents. the current policy gives broad authority to monitor and obtain footage of first amendment protections with no checks and to allow monitoring of

misdemeanor legalized the mass surveillance of the entire city with no meaningful cause. if we care about stopping police violence and protecting activist this is must be amended to limit police ability to access the footage. the police have shown they will abuse their authority to target black and brown and activists they cannot be trusted with this broad authority to monitor us. the chief discussed there must be a balance with right and public safety allowing police to use private cameras is a threat to our liberties. and important low more policing and surveillance will not make us safer. 60% of people in san francisco made clear they don't support the surveillance and sudden fran want alternatives to policing that meet our needs like access to health care, housing and mental health services we cannot trust the police to keep us

safe, please, oppose this policy. >> thank you, next caller. >> good morning. i'm in district 6 i oppose this expansion of surveillance. san francisco was a leader of privacy law and i appreciate supervisor peskin's past leader help on this issue this measure would under mine that legacy and leadership and threaten the rit to lawful prosecute test in the city. i'm encourage the committee to listen to the aclu and other groups about the problems with the measure. and put this on hold unless or until the concerns can be addressed. this measure needs to have safe guards and accountable. thank you. >> thank you. next caller >> mr. clerk i received e mail from a person indicating that

the live feed on sfgovtv may not be working can we check again. >> can we double check. >> and i would suggest the person refresh their browser as that may be an issue. sorry. the streaming is working proper low. >> all right >> proceed. can we have the next caller >> hi. good morning. i'm a long time residents of san francisco. i'm a citizen representing myself. and believe it or not i'm calling to support this

ordinance to allow the pd to access the private security cameras. i do believe it is important at all times to balance privacy and public safety. upon begin the type and volume of crime in the city now, i think additional strategies are needed to protect law arc biding citizens and businesses. i don't believe this is a massive unchecked expansion of current legislation. the irrelevant important tool that law enforcement can use in very specific circumstances to help solve crime. organize the crime groups are using tactics mob thefts and et cetera to overwhelm our under staffed law enforcement. if we don't want cam ares, find, but the other logical option then would be for to you fully support a funded sfpd and i expect all of you on the

committee to do everything you can to get more beat cops, then. this is not a very broad monitoring of our lives, applies to specific person circumstances. and can also be used to monitor officers to make sure they are following the laws as well and that's important in all of this. of business owners and private citizens can opt in if they want. you know it is about access where appropriate and it seems like a lot of thought has been put into how and when this is used. and clearly a lot of thought has gone into this. so, i'm asking to you support this ordinance in the interest of public safety. thank you. why thank you. >> next caller. >> hello. my name is nikki i'm a

department public defend and have been for 25 years. i'm also a resident of district 8. hello supervisor mandelman. you know, i in my experience know the value of evidence. video evidence. however, this policy as written is a problem. the reason why is. multifoeldz. i will focus a few here. the police department has been known to misuse the dna sexual assault survivors. and there are other things. my feeling is this. we need safe guards that limit access to who monitors this -- footage and video. and we need safe guards as to who is accessing the data and we need limits as to the duration

of the retention of the videos. i want to also address the issue with regards to the prud boy and protests. this is a domestic terror organization where you can assume when they show up because of their past behavior. so we don't need a broad policy that will punish first amendment activity because we have a terrorist organization who is going to actually -- be i have lent. so that is my point. thank you very much. for listening. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> thank you to the board. i'm [inaudible] commune advocate the asian-manner asian law

caucus. asking to you consider the implications of the item. policy has been insufficiently vetd and poses risk to the civil rights of san francisco. the value of private cameras in the city from door bells on homes to outside businesses should not be part of the police surveillance arsenal. if they asked the stele to buy cameras for live surveillance residentses and the board and this to ecploy private surveillance should be met with the same skepticism. sfpd has a history of abuse and discrimination from detaining immigrants after 911 and spy on blm activists. this will make us less safe and unpopular with the people of san francisco. asian law caucus advocates for asianamerican commune for 50 years and we lead a coalition

calling on pd to sever the reps with the federal government's joint terrorism task force, which targeted arab, middle eastern and south asian communities. they loyaled and mislead the communities about the collaboration with the fbi for years and in violation of civil right's detection. our community members raised police surveillance casting a cloud over their lives for decades. without accountability or vetting of the surveillance policies this will be among the most impacted by their growing surveillance infrastructure. again, we ask to you consider the communities concern of the this item. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next caller.

no audio.... okay that user was not monitoring their line. move on to the next caller. >> hi. i'm erika i live in district 5. and i just want to agree with everyone that voiced reasons for opposing this. this absolutely violates citizens rights. and it is absolutely terrifying. having. like the previous caller said important to ask how will this be abused. there are not enough restrictions on how this calendar be implement and used and in the future. i feel so uncomfortable exist nothing a city where this is possible. survilling my cameras does not

being -- like that by police does in the make me feel safer it makes me uncomfortable when i'm at people's houses and having that footage recorded by cops, does not make me feel safer i think the sfpd is capable of requesting a warrant and having contact will not reduce crime there is no evidence this will reduce crime. there are in the case in having surveillance of homes and businesses would have prevented crime. it is important to say the pd is spreading misinformation to justify surveilling citizens. thank you. >> next caller. good morning supervisors i'm christine. i'm a homeowner in district 8 and my office is in district 6. i am also concerned about public safety. and that is exactly why i oppose

this proposal. i think a lot of great points have been brought up and in priest hearings around private ayesacy data retention and sharing. historic discrimination and more. and i think i want to uplift 3 points. the first is as members of the public and and am policy experts -- sfpd has avenues for require footage in investigations. 2 live surveillance in the city. contrary to had they claimed the

network of cameras is extensive. home and businesses in the city have cameras this is obvious by walking around. hathis means is any person can be tracked the entire time. if this proposal were in place. it does actually have a pretty wide reaching impact. third. does a little to combat crime. next caller.

hi. i'm jackson a district 8 voter. this policy on any like it must be rejected completely. consider how easy it is to criminalize certain human beings. today in the u.s. this includes individuals without immigration documents or per minute nan shelter. seeking to term nit a pregnancy and he individuals exist black and brown due to the ufrn accountability of loument the supreme court will consider over turning federal protections for same sex major and intimacy. a tremendous point of niches have ring door bell there is is one pointing at my home. what happens had it records me and my partner time together in patriot or records me kissing bye-bye as he getos the bus.

you think it could not happen and you gravely mistaken. it happens here every day it is a few signatures away from getting much worse. must end surveillance today. your life and my life depends on this. thank you. >> thank you. have our next caller. i -- live in the bay area. everyone had health care -- basic needs if it turns on please stations. basic needs funds the police caused nothing. i'm angry as many others are --

callers don't know without calling in and so angry to express -- how frustrating this -- is gaining around the country and in san francisco. people have the opportunity to stop it now. we have the opportunity to. and if people don't take it -- [sighing] we will not be able to live with the consequences. >> thank you. why next caller. yes. hi. this is [inaudible] i'm a long time activist. i spent, lot of time at demonstrations back when this federal building was [inaudible]. [inaudible] some included slope nothing door ways.

i couldn't agree more with the sentiments expressed today and i don't need to repeat the argument. i would like to question how much the purchase of such equip and installation could be, legality of moncompetence then the alotted expense involved in monitoring them. spending time looking at the cameras. and perhaps it is being recorded. um -- the images of the drone strikes going on in the world. the simple monitoring of them is in the healthy activity. um -- the cameras can be used by the property to protect their

own property. >> they belong to the citizens to use and [inaudible] thanks for your attention to this. >> thank you. next caller. hello i live in district sxen grew up in san francisco. i wanted it remind everyone this sfpd used rape kit data to prosecute survivors of rape this is why they don't safe and no one to turn to had experiencing sexual assault or domestic violence. it is frightening you want to trust them with more of our data and terrifying and unsafe.

supervisor peskin the public is under no misunderstanding chief scott expands the access to surveillance. a way to next transparency of existing surveillance. we understand hathis mean and appears you don't. any of you claimed against the violation of rights to control our bodies are fake. you are supporting something that will harm people seek abortions. even if not in the situation, the surveillance is an extreme violation. i'm terrified by this. don't give away my mites. thank you for your time. 19b and hold. >> next speaker >> that completes the callers waiting in line. >> public comment is closed. and -- as i indicated earlier we will continue this item to our

meeting of next monday. and will convene between now and then and i also would encourage the administration and department to look at i don't know if than i provided them or not they have provoire dired them to the committee. suggested read lines the aclu put forked. seeing no comments from members. thank you to the public for your public testimony. the left speaker not with standing and i will make i motion to condition this item a week. >> yes. will on the motion to continue to the next meeting to july the 18th. supervisor chan!

aye. >> mandelman. >> aye >> chair peskin >> aye >> the motion passes without objection. the next is item 2 ordinance amending the code to require board of supervisors approval for the funding and use of law enforcement equipment consistent with criteria set forth in state law. >> thank you, mr. young. as i said earlier, this is a very similar law 19 b but a luthat was enacted by the state legislator and signed by the governor bill -- 481. back at the end of september of last year. and this is the mayor's and department's initial team at compliance and a requirement

going forward. i don't know if you want to make comments on behalf of the administration or wlo weather go to the department? your call. >> all right. thank you. i got it. thank you. . here to present about law enforcement equip use policy. pursuant to california bill 481 we will put up a presentation remotely. just a moment. looks like you received our hard copies.

>> as supervisor mentions bill 481 went in affect in january of this year codified code section 770 through 7075. and requires law enforcement agencies in california to obtain approval from the applicable governing body the board of supervisors. to approve the lament use of equip policy specified by ordinance. what we propose today is to cover all of the equipment that we acquired before january 2022. again if we plan on acquiring using or purchasing equipment that falls under this bill now we are covering everything in the concern inventory 15 cocaines used by law enforcement. public posting and board of

supervisor hearing considering the equipment use policy for all the equip arc kwoired prior to january 22 and eventual low any equipment that is acquired after january 22. requires a boardanual review members will ufts equipment and decide whether we continue use or cease use. next slide. the use policy 41 requirements for when we put in front of you. out line the equipment subject to the provision. description of our uses. the fiscal impact. and procedural rules and training requirements. it th is on our website the last slide i will show you the link.

the equip we have. ab481 out lines 15 categories sfpd needs 8. categories. first category is for unmachined robots. and those fell under the provisions of sf code 19 b. we will be back with those. those also some of them have cam ares. they go twice. next slide. the uses for the equipment in inventory is governored by our department written directives. and in in case men impacted department general orders and that goes through a public process with the police commission and stake holder feedback. i out lined a few of the dgo's that are used for compliance with the use of our equipment under ab481. we have 501.

use of 5. 16, search warrants. 515, policing. 8 where are 1. evidence and notification. 8 where are 2 hostage and barricade suspect. 807 hazzard us material. 808. threats. and also have a crowd control manual and a command van request. our department notice. this is the out line in our policy put nothing fronts of you. i have out lined a few 6 of the 8 to show examples of that the uses are for the equipment. and typically our agency is used the equipment as an alternative to using force. and alternative to using our department issued firearms none are use the distance our officers from the threat. so -- these are the use.

advance fall under it. i think we are familiar with what command vans do. and also robots will come become under 19 b. and our extended ridge impact weapon. the ab41 covers bean bag guns and these are less [inaudible]. also covers breaching tools and our chemical agents. next slide. this is where we have posted our website we have the policy which is up. since the 16th and a place where the public can leave questions and come to e mill that is monitored by several people in the chief's office. next slide. and happy to take questions.

>> thank you. i am them is a new one for us. and -- in looking at the document this is weekend and after we had the chance after you had the chance to brief me, high level observations. one is the document itself. is inconsistent throughout as relating to quantification. some places that says quantity:2. and other places it may be tucking to quantity but unclear like -- remote f service a at the bottom well is a 2. i assume that is the quantity but -- i'm not sure like if you go to section one -- under description says remote f5a.

:2. i think that is that you have 2 of them but hard to say. and under the dragon -- no. under the reconrobertics scout 3 bot. it says one out of service does this mean there are 2 and one ask out of service or you have one and it does not work. that is a housekeeping issue. although. it did raise the question of why they are out of service. that may not be -- i guess it is jermaine to this piece of legislation. and then i note some of the cross references as to training and other things are not --

not -- i could not finds on the department's website. i think it is important this when you go to this, and there is a dgo or whatever that you can actually click on it and have one stop shopping to say thshg is hat dgo says or training required. we need to sharpen that up. the assault rifles help me -- where is this in the policy? am i missing that? i see -- the taser shock wave >> the erw guns. this is the h on page 8? >> correct. there is no -- in terms of -- 50

caliber large or ear weapon this is all you got j. we don't have 50 caliber and above. >> okay. and then deputy city attorney, least deal with -- mr. paulino, the item that is before us really is an enabling piece of legislation as it creates a new chapter of the administrative code 96g, which sets out the requirements of ab481. in and of itself does not approve the policy that -- arc b481 requires us to be approved us to approve or does not require us to approve. that would be before us for consideration for approval and it looks like you are you come to that conclusion approximate have amendments that would do

that should the committee choose to do that? >> we were made, way that there was not that language you referenceed expressly approve the policy. the amendments that were circulated to the members would include this. >> and relative to how this interacts with the fiscal year 22/23 budget, which is before us right now, and in so as far as ab481 requires the board to approve acquisition of covered equipment; how was that -- how was that dealt with in the 22/23 budge relate to arc b 481? >> i have not been involved in budget discussions. if we put forward any budget items for our equip, it would be

covered. but i'm not sure what happens if you don't approve of the use policy what we would do with that. >> the specific subquestion is, is there any of the covered equip that is being contemplated in the budget that we are about to approve? >> good afternoon, chair peskin and supervisors, thank you. so, i can't get in the very specific details regarding the large budget of the deputy chief and special operations for members of public. good afternoon all of you. i can tell you looking at the list of equipment when you buy special equip for the special operations bureau, there are warranties included. some of the equipment with many things that have technology compossibly reach the end of their useful work span.

there are things like -- the eriw the extended rink impact weapons that require service and the ammissions for weapon system are factored in the budget some are issued for deployment others are used for training. and there is an allowance as well for ammunitions that reach the end of the expire for the lack of a better word. it is kinds of a living other breathing thing. there are probably parts of that that have been the funds have been extended and there are other poses of that to that equip that will require future service and maintenance that is included in the next budget. if this helps, i hope.

>> and then i assume we are in receipt of a letter of that raises a bunch of requests as to whether or not the first time out is in compliance with ab481. and i think, when i read this after i read the document, um -- the issue of quantity is one thing that either need clarification or there were none list said. as relates to the requirement that costs and annual costs be included. there are a few places where it is in the complete. that may be for lack of knowledge like you don't have the records when this was acquired upon 20 years ago. there are a few places that it

said, n/a, not available is this worth saying we searched and information is not available we attempted comply? and there may be some spots where it needs. anyway that's one and then whether the policy includes legal and procedural rules. i also indicated there are some places where it refers to unpublished policy. so they mead to something for consumers of this information. and member there is a reference in the breaching policy to a dgo that apparently this i did not do this research this is someone's comment. this did not specific low in that -- dgo mention the use of breaching equip. so -- that should be figured

out. and around the subh, i think it needs some additional work with regard to the policy inclusion of training information. i think. those are just initial thoughts -- if we accept the amendments that the mayor has proposed, that would trigger a continuance. in any event this will issue continued one way or the other. this gives you time to. the i's and cross those t's. and then deputy city attorney, relative to the upon findings that this board of supervisors would need to make to comply with a b 41, can you state those for the record? >> deputy city earn ann pierson.

it establishes a standard that the board must find the policy meets before it approves the policy. and the board must determine the equipment is necessary there is not other alternative that can achieve the objective. equipment use policy will save goord the public safety, sift rights and liberties. that purchasing the equipment it is cost effective. and that any prior use of the equipment complied with prior policy that was in affect. >> thank you. all right. why don't we come comments or questions or observations from members? seeing nobody rush to do that why don't we go to public comment for this item 2. >> yes. public who wishes to speak can

lineup to speak. for those remote call 4156-0001 enters the neating id. press pound, pounds and star 3. continue it wait until you are unmute exclude that will be your queue to begin your comments nobody in the room for public comment we can move on to our callers and we have 4 on the line for public comment. why before we hear from the first caller. one housekeeping issue if you send the presentation to the clerk to be included in the file for this and future meetings. first caller, please. >> [inaudible]. on this item 2 i mark for

identification my comments duplicated what was said i written a few minutes ago if you could post the presentation this would be great. on the legislation itself on page 7 it's the top, line one i think it needs a space between chapter and 96 g. on page 10, of the policy page 24, of the packet; once again a reference to the department of police accountability. that is one south vaness not one. we want to direct people to the right address. and -- are there other city law enforcement agencies that are subject to this state law? like the sheriff the da, and others? i did go look at government code section 7070 and did specify

sheriff district tash, probation offices and transit police. i wonder if there are others that are subject and if so they could either send a letter that says that have no equip or if than i have equipment or considering it they develop their own policy. and subject to all of this discussion. the police proposal notes the life expectancy but not the acquisition date that may be useful. i understand this is a draft policy when finalized. i would have linksingly to the other documents so one does not have to try to find these thing and had is the implementing ordinance the policy would be a separate item subject to a sez lugz at the board as well as the annual reports i would not include what the amendments to

this ordinance that approves the policy i would have the policy approval be the solution. that's my thought. thank you for listening. >> next caller, please. >> hi. renee. i don't know what to say new. other that hai said in nile previous statement regarding surveillance. i think that -- providing military equip to the police force or any police force is a huge mistake. i think increased militarization only leads to increased violence. and so i urge this committee to reject this. thank you.

upon next caller. >> hi i'm donna a ritired policy analyst for public dwell felonier's office. thank the rules committee for rerowelling this policy this is about civil yen over site over police use of weapons of war unless it is republican appropriate use. the past mons i read dozens of this throughout the state. i'm struck boy how inadequate this policy proposed is. an example. ab481 requires it is policy to list permitted uses for each equipment. weapons used for vulnerable people. this policy is silent on authorized uses. replaces no limitations. i want to points out that the

dgo mentions if you look them up they are old and most don't talk about the equipment that we are discussing here. ab481 requires the policy to list an oversight body. and this policy was internal process. this under mines the intent of the law. another new law ab48 which passed last year chemical exactly projectile weapons. this policy we are looking at here today can ignore the law and accomplices no limits on the weapons. proposed i heard said that the sfpd does not have assault rifleless i would like to hear more about that. there are many further problems and i hope the board will take the 180 days the luallows and get this right. thank you.

>> thank you, next caller. >> great. good afternoon. [inaudible] on behalf of [inaudible]. a b 41 grants you and other local governments greater oversight over the militarization of law enforcement and and police departments that acquire military grade equipment are likely [inaudible]. [inaudible] military equipment is a force multiplier. when we have the desparities and use of force it will multiploy racial disparities in use of pores. [inaudible] reports found this san francisco ranks the worse in the state when it come to police cause hospitalization rates to black residents we hope you will take time to develop, review and

adopt this policy so that it reflects commune concern the proposed policy [inaudible] and vital we get this right. chair peskin named concerns that the proposed policies missed in oversight [inaudible] needs to be identified in the policy to ensure the named oversight entity assumed the responsible. it does not define authorize uses and appears to grant limitless authorization and comply with arc b 48 on chemical with respects for crowd control the previous caller and [inaudible]. please, take the time to consider the policy and incorporate these in concerns. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please.

we will move on to the next line >> here i am. >> hello >> proceed. >> yes. i'm not certain what exactly is being decide now. i merely want to say flat out that any use military equipment on our public is unjustifyd and unwanted andive am opposed to the police department purchasing or using any military equipment. we are not the enemy it is unfortunate there are enemies but we are not the enemy and don't need military devices to control our lives.

thank you very much for your attention and my wishes for your continued good governoring. thank you. >> next caller >> i'm jennifer tu we analyzed ab48 policies across california. be [inaudible]. i would like to thank you for item. policy must be revised to comply before returning for consideration. thank you for raising the ways it complies failure on disclose the quantity of cover have had items and failure to include the authorized use wagz situations and upon independent oversight and missing the policy for

assault rifleless. several commenters on the previous item referred it a tragic killingly sfpd used a ratify thankful is an important peels of military equipment to cover in the policy. ab481 covers multiple types over 50 caliber in 70, 70 and also assault rifles less than 50 in section 7070 c 10. to reminds everyone the public deserves to know under what circumstances than i can expect a weapon to be or not to be used. i encourage the board and the department out lining not just who may use a weapon under the simples it should be expected to be used or under what

circumstance its should not be used. thank you very much. ab481 does a lot to increase transparency to the public. next caller. i'm marshall lawer and calling as a representative from the san francisco [inaudible] office. thank the board for continuing this item and like to request you edit. [inaudible] limit that the police can do with military equipment. others noted the policy does in the comply with ab481. policy does in the define authorized uses and must limit use of the equipment to ensure

it does in the result in need legals loss of life. >> policy is missing over site and the policy complies with ab48 [inaudible] weapons. the policy must incorporate limitations the purpose of 481 the policy should not allow for stalking without approval. of the board should not adopt this until it is in compliance of, b481 and require sfpdf alternatives. and must ensure it is not used to endanger communities especially communities of color. take the sick months for the policy. this is a serious issue and addressed with care and deliberation not in a rushed

process. thank you for your time. >> thank you. why that was the last caller on the line. >> thank you public comment is closed for today. other policies of other ecstasy adopted comparand contrast and around authorized uses. the second, is -- the legislation and the policy is sill 11 on this what role if any the department contemplates for the police commission in ab481? which may be a good clearing house before it come here

annualy and finally, it appeared the authorization that you were seeking was limitless but i think the ma'ams clarify that bring it become to what is required the state law. that issue has been cured. thank you pierson for that, what role should the commission play in this? part of the annual review on page 11. i believe states that -- within 30 days of thenual report to the board, the department is supposed to hold a hearing. we have do that at the police commission.

that makes sense to me. i don't know when my colleagues think but look if i'm interested in planning my first is planning if i'm interested in law enforcement my first is the police commission. and that's probably where -- i did not drill down in the last paragraph where you are correct it says with the police

commission. and i think i would just wap words and say the police commission shall hold but -- it is a little muddy. any comments from -- committee members? supervisor chan? thank you, chair. i am i am -- appreciative we have one more week to just -- we might need more than one week begin what is going on and the fact we have more fund police stuff for next week i was suggesting 2 weeks. if this does not hurt anybody's feelings i know the state law we have until november. so we are in the process we can tell everybody we are working in good faith to comply with government code section 7070 and you got what you got and we are

doing our best. yea. that's -- all. i appreciate more time. it is on this one. thank you. >> thank you. and then i will say manage had lived here in this town for a third of the century. which is -- there have been and will be crazy things that happen in this town. where -- having some of this military grade equip if used proper low will be needed. i think become at this time days of franklin street and the body armorand multiple magazine assault rifle. people were going, shots were going through. windows of ground level stores

and receive pain walks with a bullet in him. this is the equipment to deal with that. we have been luck and he rare. but there are i have to say there is a xroel god forbid you don't want a situation where you are not prepared for the worse. having said that. use policies saying you can't drive down the street every day we don't -- need to have military equipment. on display. frankly rarely happens is appropriate. i thank and the state legislator and welcomed the law an appropriate conversation for us all to have transparency. but i want to say there are going to be times and have been times when equipment like this is necessary. if there is no objection accept

the elements offered and continue this item. why don't we continue to the call the chair who knows how long tell take you to do this and i'm happy to look at iterations along the way and there may be and i will encourage folks who took the time to write a 5 page letter to reach out to the department directly and if you are listening sends me an e mail exit will loop in the people from the department and mir's office this is the mayor's legislation and if we get it done in 2 weeks, great. a motion to accept the amendments. on that motion a roll call, please. >> yes. to accept the amendments supervisor chan? >> aye >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye.

>> the motion passes. >> and i will make a motion to continue the item as amended to the call of the chair with the hope we get this done before summer recess. on that motion a roll call. >> on that motion supervisor chan? >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. why aye yoochl chair peskin. why aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> next item. >> thank you. next on the agenda is item 4 ordinance amending the police code to mean a service this lists a covered city accident in third party sweep delivery services including website and mobile application and if sillity and or performance delivery or food and beverages from the establishment. to exempt from the 15% cap order fees starting january 31. 2023.

third party food deliver offer restaurants the option to obtain core delivery services 15% of purchase price of online order without >> reporter: to purchase of additional services. >> okay. here is the long story which you will colleagues recall. you have both been here during all of the events which is -- we had a pandemic. and everybody was locked in their houses and third party food delivery apps like door dash, grub hub became critical. and i -- suggested that we adopt emergency legislation to cap the percentage commission fees that the apps the third party apps

could charge a restaurant all of which struggling to stay open and the mayor actually issued an emergency order doing so. subsequently the board of supervisors adopted that has legislation and the original legislation had a sunset date we removed. that resulted in litigation brought by some not all of the third party food delivery apps door dash and grub hub. i will note uber did not join in this litigation. our fine soon to be judge deputy city attorney jeremy goldman defended 90% of this let you, a couple of causes of action survived the motion to dismiss.

and some day would be litigated and paled by either side up and up the chain for years. meanwhile. discussions between the goldengate restaurant association, my office and the third party food delivery world proceedd and resulted in an outcome before us today. where in the fundamental notion of our 15% cap is preserved as a core delivery service. but to the extent hada restaurant of their own voluntary volition of their own wishes to enter in contracts that exceed that, for things like --the website. credit card fees, et cetera. they can choose to do that but

the companies must offer the core delivery service at the 15% cap. i think that is a win for the restaurants and the luthis we i believe we unanimously passed i should in the say that supervisor mandelman reminded me he decented. not in this matter. may be not. does not matter i'm not trying to impune your reputation. the golden gate restaurant association passport this is. ip want to thank department city attorney goldman and his team including sarah prowly and recommend this legislation to you, which pursewn to a stipulation plowed in the court would lead to the dismessal of claims by door dash and grub hub. is there public ment on item 4?

yes. member the of public who are in the room can get in line. to speak at this time remote call and enter id24842226106 and pounds issue pounds then star 3 to enter the speaker line. wit until you have been unmuted that will be your queue to begin comments. it appear we have 9 listeners no one in line to speak. >> okay. public comment on item 4 is closed. and supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. i want it confirm in this version had according to hai am learning is basically capping still capping the 15% with a core delivery service.

and that is what essentialy we are doing today >> that's correct. there is a new definitionace core delivery stated at page 2 service that covered establishment and makes the establishment discoveriable. on the internet. and -- facilitates and or performs the delivery through their employees or independent contractors that is a core delivery service. deputy city attorney? thank you. >> thank you then in this case i would like to be added as a coexperience and appreciate supervisor peskin's leadership on this. it has been critical to make sure that our restaurants and small business are not being taken advantage of. and but same thing with the

residentses that in the evans than i must concern teen or any way that can not can when they depends on a time of delivery food delivery service this is critical. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm delighted. supervisor mandelman. [cannot hear supervisor mandelman applicant applicant. thank you i'm honor and with that i would like to make a motion to send the item to the full board with the cosponsorships of chan special mandelman on that motion? with recommendation. >> supervisor chan. why aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye >> chair peskin. why aye. >> the motion passes without

objection. >> next item. next on the agenda is item 5. charter amendments second draft the city and county of san francisco provide the forefitture of benefits of a member of the employee's retirement system refining clearing evidence after administrative hearing the member committed extortion or fraud connection with members and duties as a city employee and election on november 82022. >> thank you. at our last meeting i indicated that we had i think 5 meet and conifers now 7 we are so close but so far. . this either will or will not come together. i want to appreciate those

unions most of them. i have to say almost all of them and bargaining units opposed to unions most of them. that are so close. wish not all of them. with that, is there i would will make a motion to continue this to our last possible date. of next million the 18th but prior to that is there public comment on this item? >> yes. members providing comment on this item. can line up and those calling can call 415-655-0001id is 2842228106 and press pounds issue pounds and star 3 to enter the line. for those on hold, continue it wait until you have been unmute exclude that will be your queue to begin your comment.

at this time, we have 2 callers on the line for public comment. first speaker, please. >> david again i'm wondering if there are amendments to be offered today for review at the meeting next monday or if it is to continue the item as previously amended which is the second draft? thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors corey smith with housing okay coalition expressing the concern we had previously. wait. mr. smith. the housing action coalition now is concerned about -- we are

concerned about the ability to build now housing and that might be impacted by this policy. mr. smith we are on pension forefitture. >> oh , i'm sorry i arc pol yoiz i'm watching the items on tv. apologize. >> next caller. >> i believe that was our last caller on the line. >> all right. public comment on this item is closed. and i will like to make a motion to condition it a week to our meeting of the 18th. >> yes, on that motion supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> thank you. um -- next item, please. actually why don't we skip over

this for a million minute expect go to 7. >> 7 is a charter amendment third draft to amend the city and county of san francisco to establish fund under the department youth and families provide grants to school district to impelement program and improve academic achievement and election held on november 82022. is anybody here from supervisor ronnin's office if not it does not matter we know what to do before we do that is there public comment on this item? yes, members of the public on the line can call 415-sick 55-0001, id28422261 where are sick pounds, pounds and star 3 to enter the line. for those in the queue continue

to wait until you are unmuted and that will be your queue to begin your comment. we have a caller for common law comment on this matter. there is a caller on the line >> one caller. david i still think this does in the reflect a fiscally prudent prospect to the budget. i oppose it. thank you. >> okay. >> are there additional speakers on this item. >> there are no other speakers on this matter. >> public comment is closed. i understand that supervisor ronnin is on her way i don't know if that is from her office why don't we give her a minute. and there she is. she you said you don't need to say anything.

you are here so -- you mine as well say something. yea. [cannot hear]. sfgovtv this item is labeled wrong had the is student success fund charter amendment. and clothe colleagueless. thank you i may get my penning forefitture forwarded. >> and it is item 7. >> yes. and yes it is item 7. why okay. thank you so much for hearing this item so many time in committee. it there is no further amendments to make and i think it is red to go. so, i hope you will make a mowing to stend to the full board with positive recommendation.

>> supervisor ronnin, i'm getting there. it runs against every fiber in my body and i am trying to for the first, time, in a generation, vote for a charter set arc side this does in the have any new source of funding. if there is one that rises to that level for an exception of my long held policy this is it. but if you gave me 2 weeks to just get myself there i would make a motion to send it. these i don't know who is cosponsors i know you got the votes if you let me do that -- i'm trying to talk myself into it. >> sure. >> [laughter]. i -- how is that. >> [laughter]. >> i would be unbelievely honored have your support supervisor peskin and if this helps to get you there.

why otherwise tell be a 10-1 vote. it also i think it sends a message to the city that the board is united and in believing that our students need extra resources to reach their full potential in public school. something this is not happening at the moment. your vote means a lot and if you need a couple weeks to get there and it helps that works just fine. >> thank you. >> supervisor chan? thank you chair peskin i know what you mean but i want to say the reason why i'm in support after i know that the supervisor ronnin worked irrelevant hard to come to a space where we can be fiscally responsible. and i also want to say this is

partly that the city especially in the last few fiscal years benefits from from excessive revenue funds. that is specific low because that is excessive funding we receive president sty due to collected funding for the school system. and -- in that -- because as a result the city in the last 2 year urg pandemic able to -- ride the storm. and i think that with the proposal and i think with the amendments this we have accepted last week. it has become that it it is not only fiscally responsible, i think that it really meets the goals and purpose for the

students of san francisco. een though the state does in the rescue noise the need we as a city recognize the needs of our students in the public school system. of course i want it say this with transparency that i am parent of a third grader of a public school system. there is per of it is self serving. thinking about my kid and his friend and in the school system. i will be monopoly support. if that is what it ticks to get this out of the committee without recommendation we can have this conversation at full board i'm in support of this as well. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. we did we open to public comment. why we had. i thought so. i will make a motion to sends this item without recommend agsz to the full board. >> the motion is to refer the

matter without recommendation on this motion. surprise chan. >> aye. >> mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. why aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> thank you, good work supervisor ronnin. item 6. >> yes. charter amendments second draft amend the charter of san francisco to set forth a >> reporter: that when the city admins the planning cold for density or height the developer agrees to subject the new residential units in the development other than affordable house to rent control and election to be held on november 82022. there is a request to sends this out as a committee report. >> thank you. mr. young and colleagues. you are in receipt of a change

to the findings set forth on page 6 that references -- a steady on rent control in new york called rent regulation myth and facts. and i would like to amend that finding into the legislation. and not sends this as a committee report but continue the item as amended to our meeting of the 18th. this is all i are to say about this item that we have discussed. over a number of meetings. with that why don't we open this up to public comment. >> yes. members wish to speak can lineup to speak. those on the line can call 415-655-0001, 24842226106 pound, pounds and then star 3 to enter

the line. for those in the queue wait until you have been unmuted that is your queue to begin. at this time we don't have anybody in line for comment. closed a motion to adopt the finding amendments and continue this item to the 18th on that 2 part motion a roll call. >> if you don't mind we have a caller who just jumped on. i mind but go ahead. >> can we have our caller, please. >> good afternoon. supervisors corey smith the housing action coalition. just for your record might be a

funky system connection. as well at the queue. i had requested an operator was giving instructions. mentioned we discuss third degree a member of types and conditioning to reiterate our concern about this measure's impact on the construction of new housing talking to members and the controller's report. it seems this will make it more difficult and unfeasible for housing to get finance said. which could result in no additional reason control units. thank you very much. >> thank you. public comment is closed and i will note that his members are developers. >> all right. on the motion that i previously made a roll call. >> give me a moment. do we have another caller. on the line. can we have our next caller.

>> good afternoon this is renee. affordable housing as for seniors with disabilities i'm [inaudible] supervisors peskin's reason control [inaudible] [caller muffled] [inaudible] . regarding the grace period that [inaudible] i suggest [inaudible] need to have the charter amendments straightforward and possible, they will be effective and also to be clear and meaningful in

the lines of the voters. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. are and -- given corey smith's mistake i know hahis argument can s i upon to speak to that it seems that when -- something that protects our residents protects renters is going to be a disincentive for development. we mead to look elsewhere besides -- private developers. to be providing our housing.

that's it, thank you. >> thank you. we don't have additional callers. >> okay. public comment is closed now vote on the motion. >> yes, on the motion to amend the matter continue it as amended the july 18th, 22 meeting of rowels supervisor chan. >> aye. >> >> commissioner tom mcmahon:. why aye. >> chair peskin. why aye. >> the motion passes without objection. clarify for the record as to item 7 the first appearance of item 7 at the board on the 19th and voted on the 26th. will appear on next week's board meeting. >> all right. we are adjourned.

hi, sandy, how are you? >> hi, fine, thank you. how are you? >> good. i want to ask you what inspired you to be a paramedic? >> that's a good question. you know, i wanted to go into med school and after i found out how much time it took and all of that, i decided that that was going to be a little too much schooling, but i still wanted to figure out a way that i could provide medical care and doing that as an emt as well as a paramedic was a way to do that. >> can you give me a break down of a typical day for you? >> i come to work and sit at my desk and then i respond to e-mails and try to figure out what are some of the issues we need to address. can we hire more people. what kinds of policies we want to try to create that will help us do our job as ems. >> what does it take to be a female paramedic? >> you know, it takes quite a

bit of schooling, but also required somebody who's empathetic. it can be a very stressful job and so we want people to be able to hand that on a day-to-day basis. >> so what's your greatest satisfaction in your job? >> trying to make sure that the work that we provide and the services that we provide to the community is the best that we can in ems so that when we go out to see you if you call us for an emergency, that we'll be able to treat you in the best way possible and that you get the care as quickly and as effectively as possible. >> why is it important for young girls, women of color to see women in these roles? >> i think it really is important for us to be able to get into these roles because we are effective, we are able to reach out to the community. we are able to do the job in a very effective manner and to be able to relate to the community and be able to do that is one of the best things that we can do. and people of color and as women of color, you know, we are in a great position to be

>> it was an outdoor stadium for track and field, motorcycle and auto and rugby and cricket located in golden gate park, home to professional football, lacross and soccer. adjacent to the indoor arena. built in the 1920s. the san francisco park commission accepted a $100,000 gift from the estate to build a memorial in honor of pioneers in the area. the city and county of san francisco contributed an additional $200,000 and the stadium was built in a year. in the 1930s it was home to several colleges such as usf, santa clara and st. mary's for

competition and sporting. in 1946 it became home to the san francisco 49ers where they played nearly 25 years. the stayed de yam sat 60,000 fans. many caught game the rooftops and houses. the niners played the last game against the dallas cowboys january 3, 1971 before moving to candlestick park. the stadium hosted other events before demolition in 1989. it suffered damages from the earthquake. it was reconstructed to seat 10,000 fans with an all weather track, soccer field and scoreboards. it hosts many northern california football championship games. local high schools sacred heart and mission high school used the field for home games. the rivalry football games are

sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well. >> so the march started in 2004, there was a lot of action going on at the time against transgender people. so an email thread went around and everybody decided to meet here at the loweris park and really send out the message to the community that we're here

and just because the legislation does not validify who we are, we are still here and we deserve to be loved and empowered. >> so for me trans march is a safe place where i will not be quiet and i can be unapologetic against my trans siblings to be in the community and say okay, you can bring yourself to the safe places. we're normal human beings and we can exist.

>> this is one of the largest trans marches that happens in the world and this space is ours. we can at least have one day where we are seen and not over shadowed by the greater pride, hostilities everywhere. trans march means so much to me. but it means so much more for me and my community. >> we really felt it was important to have a special day just for transgender people where we can have our voices lifted up and specifically seen.

>> after coming, i feel so proud of this place and also this whole movement. this joy is strong. so maybe trans march that is a lot of joy. >> my partner is transgender and you know ,z we've been together for 25 years. and i learned a lot about trans generaleder and her what it means to be transgender. to give people pride of who they are they are beautiful and an important part of society and they should have equal rights.

>> for me being here is an act of celebrating myself and feeling okay in my own skin. >>ed we have a lot of momentum here at trans mart, we have a lot of community for support from our sponsor to our tal ept, everybody is happy to support this event because we all want to be together and after two years of not being able to be together this year, people were especially excited. [applause]

[crowd noise] [music] as a city

we do a lot of parades and celebrations. public work system in the middle of things, doing inspections and cleanings and organizing our crews so we are used to creating something it is something we know how to do. >> this is managed by city workers. they are out here doing the jobs to make sure our city looks good in our city time. >> we are also routing for the warriors whether we work. it was thrilling when they won and we had to get to work to plan for the parade and to make sure that everybody in the city everybody that come to the city is safe and taken care of.

>> a lot went everwent in 100 hours of planning with the warrior and mayors office and city partners it took a team to make today possible. >> important this the department has the presence, seeing the priority and vehicles makes everyone feel safe we value our commute and serve it, it is important. >> the giant crowds we are to bring out our specialized equipment. we have small response united staffed by a paramedic and mt the small golf cart devices have a gender and he get in and out of crowds. >> i'm here to help people get to where they need to go and figure out the bus routes and navigate things temperature is important we take care of safety

and make sure everyone gets to where they need to so everyone can celebrate the warrior and be out on parade day. >> how is or ems book >> when we have been able to do is set up mobile command posts. and we partnered with the private sector with verizon to provide priority communication so we can run our entire emergency response on that network for our first responders. we know they will work even though we are getting thousands of people all competing for the same network to send photos and e maild and texts and video our first responders are able to do the same amongst the large crowd. >> get out here at 5:30 a.m. and saw employees cleaning the street its takes a team to build a champion. >> i love it and bum when he left i'm glad he is back no

matter how much he plays or does not play that man's heart and spirit he carries everyone along and really mentor people and mentoring is so important whether in basketball or the fire service or ems. mentoring is huge and having a presence like that around is huge. >> my favorite player is jordan i like he is a role player and come out as a starter i feel similar to the city i like a structure and plan when there is an opportunity to lead i like that, also. >> the player i like lisa. he is similar to me all there and game is in the pretty but gets the job done. every time he scores all right. my man is back. >> happy with seth curry's wife strong. she is a leader and she just really puts on a great face for

females and being strong and in the face of challenge and negativity. [music] [crowd noise] >> they were tons and tons and tons of blue and yellow confetti. every wrchl the end we picked up 38 tons of trash. mostly confetti. >> in terms of for our crews we were ready. after we had been data break and done carnival in may. our team was prepped to do the work and they felt tremendous pride in part of the huge celebration and tremendous pride in the coordination we did with the mayor's office, the police department issue public health and the city agencies that got together and put on a party for the bay area. put on the party for the nation.

[crowd noise] [music]c]c]c]c]c]]