>> good morn and welcome to rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisor monday july 18. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin

and joined by >> the board supervisor jz convening hybrid meetings that allow inperson attendance and public comment providing remost access and public comment via telephone. the board recognize the equitable public access is essential and will be takingpublic comment follows. those in person are allowed to speak first and take those waiting on the telephone line. those watching channel 26, 78, 99 and sf gov tv. 415-655-0001 and enter meeting id2483 (inaudible) then press pound and pound gaents. connected you hear the meeting discussion but be muted and listening mode only.

when item of interest comes up, those joining in person should line up to speak and those listening on the telephone dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on the telephone please remember to turn down the television and listening device said. as already indicated we will take public comment for those in-person and move to public comment telephone line. may submit public comment e-mail to myself the rules committee clerk at (inaudible) at sf gov.org. if you submit public comment via e-mail it is forwarded to the supervisor jz included ibthe file. you may snd by mail that completes my initial comments. >> thank you. please read the first item. >> item 1 hearing to

appoint one member ending july 1, 2023 to shelter monitoring committee. >> thank you mr. young. colleagues slowly but surely we are-don't want to post-covid because not out of covid yet but filling and updating all of the seats for the shelter monitoring committee and are today we have before us seat number 3 as mr. young stated, replacing gabriela avalos who resigned and we have one member for meets the criteria for the seat and leave us with only one vacant seat, which colleagues as you know we might be modifying the terms for that seat so we can get that one filled. with that, brit, come on up and the floor is yours.

>> good morning. supervisor peskin. and other supervisors. brit creech and i'm here to get seated on seat 3 of the shelter monitoring committee. i am come to this committee with 17 years experience in san francisco. i started out working as a volunteer at the mission neighborhood resource center serving the homeless population along the 16 street corridor in the mission and from there i became the outreach coordinator for community clinic in partnership with dolores street community services. then i started for 4 years working with 5 key schools and programs as activity coordinator for 3 of the stites, bay shore,

embarcadaro and site 10 and just last february i was named the managing site director of the (inaudible) the nation's first navigation center to serve our transgender gender non conforming and (inaudible) engage in sex work. i'm here, i made it my life's work to serve our underserved marginalized. i bring with experience being emersed in the community, walking with them and really interested in since we are based around harm reduction model of trying to look deeper into that and seeing what is that by bringing different trainings and looking at the navigation centers and shelters and finding how we can make them to better

serve the community, because we know that many residents have a lot of time on their hands. traumatized people with time on their hands it could be put to better use. >> thank you very much and you're clearly more then qualified for this seat and i for one very much appreciate your willingness to serve on what really is a important function in the city. if there are no questions from committee members, any members of the public who like to speak to item one, mrs. davis, please come forward. >> yes, members of the public joining in person should line up to speak. those listening remotely call 415-655-0001 meeting id248343859050 and pound and pound again.

once connected enter star 3. those in the queue continue to wait until the system endicates you are unmuted. can we have our first in-person speaker, please? >> thank you. >> good morning, jordan davis, pronouns are she and hurism i want to speak in support of britt creech, i came homeless and by 2015 seeking service in neighborhood resourcesenter and of course that was where i was getting mail. i was a lot crazener then i am now and she helped in a lot of ways. i was a frequent at ladies night drop in space at the mission neighborhood resource center for women identified people. she got me into leadership that i forget the name of,

and then of course by 2016 i was in (inaudible) mission sro collaborative. she helped me get into that. then i went to tar, the advanced leadership program at (inaudible) by 2017 i was on the safe single room occupancy task force she helped me get on there and that lead to a lot of things including a (inaudible) top secret project i'm working on that i will not share with you. i owe a lot to britt because she helped me get out of the cycles of disengagement that formally homeless disabled people frequently fall into, and helped me get out of a potentially a really bad crowd, so i think she is going to be a asset. she helped a lot of people in lot of different context and of course is a sr10 and advocate and bad

ass there, so you can't fucen pass her up. thank you. >> thank you. you are not a member of the public but go ahead. >> well, i feel like i'm kind of the fence of both. good morning chair peskin, vice chair and good to see you supervisor chan. i would just like to shelter monitoring committee is 100 percent behind bringing britt creech to the committee. i am strongly in her the lived experience will definitely reach the voice of the vulnerable population so shelter monitoring, hundred percent stamp of approval for britt creech. i want to thank you. i know you are getting ready to go on your guys summer break, so being able

to get britt before that so we are so appreciative of that. i just about dotted the is and crossed the t and see you when you are back from summer break. >> we will change the seat qualifications a little bit and we will have a fully filled shelter monitoring committee. seeing no further public comment-is there remote public comment? >> we did. we do not have additional public commenters. >> okay, public comment on item 1 is closed supervisor-i will make a motion to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you angie and thank you britt and thank you jordan. on the motion roll call, please. [roll call]

motion pass without objection. >> this will go to full board next tuesday and you can start serving in august. thank you all for your work. next item. >> next on the agenda is item 2. motion fiending william ortease cartagena applied for grant administration for office of economic and work force development and seek assistance from oewd oewd relating to non profit on whoz board he serves not incompatible with statement of incompatible actiskties of the small business commission of which he is member subject to conditions. >> thank you. i think you just summed it up mr. young. colleagues, this may be the first time that this rules committee has seen advanced written determination but they come from time to time, and i-there are two of them before

us today, both of which i have sponsored both of them. why don't you read item number 3. >> yes, item number 3 is moegz finding tiffany carter proposal to apply for a grant administered by economic and workforce development and seek assistance from oewd related to growth of restaurant sheole e owned not incompalpatible with the small business commission of which she is member subject to conditions. >> thank you. so, going back to what i was saying, in both of these cases, these are for individuals on the small business commission both of whom were appointed by the board of supervisor s and real ly part of work we have been doing to diversify the membership, not only the small business commission but every commission in san francisco and to that end particularly as it relates to small business commission we sought to have individuals who are part of the

small business community, which means that they themselves run small businesses but are also involved in other aspects of their community and both of these instances in the case of mr. william ortiz cartagena as fonder of small business and in the case of tiffany carter for a similar organization that does the same for african american businesses. to that end, and in so far as they are not paid for that work in working with the community, we out of abundance of caution wanted to issue these advanced written determinations to allow the organizations that they serve as non paid board members of to be engaged in

the process of applying for grants. not for their individual businesses, but in their capacity as community do-gooders and that is what these two instruments before us do with very clear conditions about what is okay and what is not okay for a period not to exceed 2 years and which can be revoked. again, neither one of these individuals receive direct grant relief from the city or our office of economic work force development nor compensated as the non profits that work to advance business interest in the community. to that end, we have mrs. tiffany carter for item 3 and

william ortiz cartagena for item 2. if members you like to hear from them, i will start mr. ortiz cort cort if you want to up and say a few words fallowed by mrs. carter. >> commissioners. thank you chair peskin. good morning vice chair mandelman, supervisor chang. peskin, supervisor peskin thank you for your commitment of diversity always in the commission as long as well as in community organizations throughout the city. this waver is just for a over abundance of transparency and caution and the work we do in the community. started in the pandemic, part of the latino task force coalition and what it does is provide direct service to latino and lutina entrepreneurs throughout the city and like supervisor peskin said, i'm from the community, so as a small business owner myself, that is how i

can relate to my community because i can't preach what i don't know. i appreciate and humbly request that you approve this waver to bring forth to the full board. appreciate you and i have a great day. >> thank you commissioner carter. >> good morning supervisors. i am tiffany carter and serve on the small business commission. i appreciate your consideration and support of the advance written determination before you today so i can continue to represent women and bipoc community in small business commission bringing much needed diverse perspective. i own a restaurant not too far from here. (inaudible) and like the opportunity to fwet assistance from the city to expand my rest rant and continue to grow in san francisco. bipoc and many

other unrepresented communities experience significant barriers to access financial and technical support. i'm appreciate the city offers unique programs through the office of economic and work force development to address these systemic barriers. i'm also a family member of sf black wall street and san francisco native. san francisco black wall street is a organization that promoats black sovereignty through advancing home ownership, economic development and spatial justice in san francisco black communities. i receive no financial compensation. i'm a member of the sf black wall seat, llc, the business entities with the same mission as black wall street foundation. i do not currently but may receive monetary compensation in the future. this provides a avenue for the board to evaluate the advanced writening

determine aiz at any point. i was honored to be appointed by the board of supervisors to serve on the small business commission and like to continue my service and the role. thank you. >> thank you commissioner carter. supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin. i want to thank the commissioners both for their contributions. i think their contributions has been critical on the small business commission. i want to give a shout out to also commissioner cynthia huei seeing people of color and knowing small business is the backbone of the local economy, i greatly appreciate your service and your leadership and our office has in the last since we took office working with small business commission. your feedback has always been thoughtful and considererate of again communities of color and are thinking about how

the city can actually better serve them and not leave them behind so thank you both and thank you supervisor peskin for willingness to work with them and sponsoring. today i'm supportive of both. >> colleagues i circulated to you some non-substantive amendments to item number 3 for the advance written determination for tiffany carter and you will see in the long title it specifically calls out the organization that she is involved with, namely san francisco black wall street and the san francisco black wall street foundation and there are wording changes in the first whereas provision. there is a new whereas

provision which would become the third paragraph that says whereas carter is a member of the sf black wall street llc with the same mission as the sf black wall street foundation and may receive compensation in the future under this position and then there is another whereas on page 3 at would be a new 4th paragraph that says whereas, carter does not currently but may receive compensation as a member of the sf black wall street llc and then there is a new line further down that page under the conditions which is carter will submit another advance written determination request if she receives compensation totaling over a thousand dollars month as a member. all the other maybes are de minimis wording changes and deputy city

attorney pierson, i assume those are non substantative but i should never assume. >> ann pierson, they are substantive because they are adding an additional waver. >> okay. so, what i would-why don't we open up for public comment but after public comment i would suggest that we vote on item number 2 and then amend item 3 and continue to our meeting next monday. mr. young, do we have any speakers on items 2 or 3? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak can line up to speak at this time. those remotely call 415-655-0001, enter id24834359050 then press pound and pound again. once connected you press star 3 to enter the speaker line. those in the queue please continue the wait until the system endicates you are unmuted and

that is the key to begin comments. there does not appear to be anybody in person. we have two callers on the line. >> first speaker, please. >> supervisors, i participated in the last virtual meeting of the small business commission and i heard the candidate on item 3 ask some questions. i feel the candidates who represent there small business commission should have more experience, and when i made a statement the chair told me that really they have no enforcement, so what is the small business commission all

about? you have (inaudible) a small businesses haven't got anything and you supervisors dont know about it. many dollars from the stimulus money have been (inaudible) to black wall street and others and now they want to be on the commission and they don't have any enforcement. we need experienced people who run small businesses, who employ, 15, 20, more then 20 people. (inaudible) people to represent the small business commission. right now the small business commission is (inaudible) i ask a relevant question. the chair told me, we can do nuther about it. you have no enforcement

capability, no capacity so who are the candidates chosen by the mayor or who ever else who are like lackeys on the small business mission. i do not support this candidate. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning david pillpel. let's be clear, this is not appointment to the small business commission, these are advantsed written determinations. i do not know these 2 individuals but i have no objection to the awd in this instance. sounds like the amendments to item 3 will require a continuance, and that's simply to cover mrs. carter's potential activities through black wall street, which seems entirely prudent. my only other comment here is i

think this is the first time that awd have come before the board surprisers. these are good examples where they make sense and good if the city attorney by memo or by increased or strengthened language in the good government guide would point to either these specific examples or that the board of supervisors or appointing bodies pursuant to sia may grant a awd under circumstances it deems appropriate with whatever conditions and that the ethics commission might also provide additional guidance. i believe i have seen some prior awd under the sia scheme but not before the board of supervisors again, so i have no objection. i'm supportive but i think these are good examples to point to in how we got

city officers in seeking awd under these type of circumstances. thanks again for listening. >> thank you. are there any additional speakers for public comment on items 2 or 3? >> i believe we have one additional caller. >> next speaker, please. >> jeremy miller and calling to express my unreserved condemnation of the mayor proposal to increase police surveillance (inaudible) >> hold on a minute, we are not at that item yet. that is further on the agenda. this is advanced written determinations for two small business commissioners. if you press star 3 you will go back in the queue and we'll get to that item later in the agenda. thank you. are there any additional speakers for items 2

or 3? >> that complete the list of public callers for the item. >> public comment is closed and ilooh make a motion to send item 2 to the full board with a positive recommendation. [roll call] >> motion pass without objection. >> i make a motion to amend item 3 as described and dissiminated to colleagues and the clerk. on that motion to amend a roll call, please. >> motion to amend. [roll call] >> motion pass without objection. >> motion to continue the item as amended to our meeting of next monday, 25 given the impending summer recess i will if you see fit

colleagues make a motion to send it as a committee report for consideration by the full board of supervisors on the 26. calvin yen please arrange for such. on the motion, roll call, please. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> yes, next is item 4. motion appointing supervisor catherine stefani term ending june 1, 2024 to the reentry council. [instructions for

public comment] >> thank you mr. young. colleagues, supervisor sfefani is not able to attend but delighted she expressed interest serving on the reentry council and recommend for such. i will also note colleagues that we will be considering board of supervisors appointment and reappointments to this body as early as next week, but more likely at the beginning of september, but if mr. young and my staff mr. yan can get it together maybe next monday. are there any members of the public who like to testify on item 4? >> there are no-if you are in the room and like to speak line up to speak at this time. does not appear to any memberoffs the mublic in the room. we have one caller on the line for public comment. >> first speaker,

please. >> hello supervisors, i dont understand why we have this hearing when the person who is going to take the position is absent. one of you supervisors speaks on her behalf. if this is going to be the routine in our city and county of san francisco, which is already gone to the hogs, i don't know what answers is remaining. the is on every level. (inaudible) public to really speak their mind. we see this through the district attorney's office. we see this with the board of supervisors. we see this with (inaudible), we see this in some of the more

investigative newspapers revealing what the supervisors are doing concerning the earnings and how they invest it. we are paying attention to all this stuff. we have important sunshine task force, a dysfunctional ethics commission. we dont have a good controller. we have a mickey mouse city attorney, and i don't understand anything much about the board of supervisors, but (inaudible) continue this so that the supervisor can tell us what exactly are her main interest in the reentry council. thank you very much. >> are there additional speakers for this item? >> yes, i believe we have one additional caller. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning

supervisors. victoria westburg the (inaudible) oversee reentry council and formally incarcerated. the board (inaudible) vacant over 2 years. we have worked with stefani on several efforts. she is a steadfast ally on justice reform. we are excited for her to join the reentry council and look forward to her involvement. thank you very much. >> thank you and i think that answers the question i was going to answer that was raised by the previous speaker, which this is a seat that can only be occupied by a member of board of supervisors and has been vacant since supervisor feur left office and delighted

supervisor stefani is interested. is there additional public comment on item 4? >> yes, we have another late jump in. >> alright, jump in. >> hi. i am a member--(inaudible) district 8, and i do not support supervisor stefani. i question a lot of her policies and i reserve the right to change my mind if the council supports her, but she really has some-more conservative member of the board of supervisor s and dont think she is a good fit for the job so i yield my time. >> any additional speakers on this item? >> that completes the

list of public callers. one more. >> one more. go ahead. >> hi. this is pauline bearer. just to counter that i think supervisor stefani is great. she is of the more rational members on the board of supervisor jz i support her and yield my time. >> thank you for that rebuttal. once, twice, any other speakers for public comment on item 4? >> no additional speakers. >> public comment is closed. i will make a motion to snd this item to the full board with positive recommendation. roll call, please. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item please. >> next is charter

amendment second draft to amend the draft to provide forfeiture of pension benefits of the member san francisco employee clear and convincing evidence after administrative hearing the member committed bribeerary embezzlement extortion wire fraud in connection with members duties in connection with or to conceal any such crime. >> thank you mr. young. colleagues this item has been before us a couple times. i want to first correct a error in today san francisco chronicle. they called on satd saturday and i was not available to speak to them and had i maybe theyed with have gotten it right. this does not apply to any individual who has committed wrong-doing in the

past, nor does it apply to at least one of the individuals of the chronicle thought it applies to, because there are already existing provisions of the charter relative to revocation of pension upon conviction of a crime involving moral torpitude. this was a proposal that was for future wrong-doing that would have or will allow the forfeiture of pension benefits for a member of the city employment retirement system by a finding through administrative erhaing hearing of certain crimes. you recall colleagues i together with human resources engaged in a long-running meet and confer sessions with a number

of different labor unions and bargaining units. i believe 7 meetings have occurred thus far. i want to thank the department of human resources and employee relations folks, particularly artis graham for their involvement and i want to as we did when we amended to the second draft that is before us, thank the many unions and bargaining units for the good faith back and forth we have had that resulted in the amendments i introduced and you all voted for a couple of meetings ago. i think on july 6 we made those amendments. however, meet and confer has not yet concluded. it will not conclude in time for this to go to the november 2022

ballot. if colleagues you are interested in more of the blow by blow at the meet and concur table mr. artis graham joined us remotely and available. i'll have him address this and i want to also thank and acknowledge deputy city attorney zachary, who drafted the original charter amendment as well as the amendments to the charter amendment that we adopted, and has continued to advice me as we have gone along. to that end, what i would like to do after we hear from mr. graham is to make another amendment which is to change the date for this charter amendment to a

different election, namely november 7 of 2023 should that election occur and then continue this item to the call of the chair while we continue to meet and confer, or god forbid reach impasse and deal with the results of a impasse whether it is declared by one side or the other. with that, mr. graham, anything you would like to say is welcome and thank you again for your work over the last couple months with this supervisor. >> thank you very much. good morning. artis graham, department of human resources. if you want a detailed blow by blow i can give wrun of those to the rules commission in closed session provided you want a general

overview i can add to the comments provided by chair peskin simply to say that dhr is happy to meet and confer working with the chair and city attorney office to try to make sure that all parties issues are heard and that they we meet and confer in good faith. >> thank you mr. graham. i think that about sums up short of closed session. any comments from committee member s? any comments from members of the public? >> thank you supervisor chan for your cosponsorship. i appreciate that sincerely. first speaker please. >> give me one moment. members who wish to speak and joining in person can line up to speak. for those listening remotely call 415-655 0001 once

connected press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those in the queue continue to wait until the system endicates you are unmuted and that is your queue to begin. >> good morning, jerry (inaudible) i like to express my strong support for the proposed legislation for the following reasons. one, acknowledges there is a corruption problem in san francisco city government and demonstrates individual ebams of the board of supervisors are committed to addressing the corruption problem. two, legislation has the potential to alter systemic corruption in san francisco city government by imposing a severe economic penalty on city employees who commit illegal acts. loss of pension impablth a entire family. three, this is the right legislation at the right time. the residents of san francisco are tired of

observing corruption in their daily lives and have been waiting for their elected leaders to address the corruption problem. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any remote speakers for the item? >> yes, two remote callers. >> first speaker, please. >> again, as the gentleman just stated, we have blatant corruption in our city, and as much as we have some laws or ordinances in place, they are not enforced. we see the division with the board of supervisors. as the years go by, more and more you

find supervisors who are inept, spineless and do not do the right thing. election time you have a platform that says that they will do something that we know who-we know the supervisors who are corrupt. i think we need to have other measures taken. the city (inaudible) the fbi had to step in in order to show us how to do our business. i never worked for the city. i worked for the federal government. the more i see the more i read

about the ordinances, the changes they are making to the amendments (inaudible) the more i'm sick to the stomach. i want to speak out because they are afraid, but we have a bunch of thugs trying to control our city. a- >> any additional speakers for public comment? >> yes, one additional speaker. >> right here. david pillpel again. i am disappointed that the meet and confer did not conclude and yield the ability to place this on the ballot. i am further disappointed to hear that as written this measure would not apply retroactively.

i ink the we can all think of at least a few individuals that perhaps should be subject to administrative hearing and denial of pension benefits due to activities while serving as a officer or employee. i think this is a great argument for why the board should not cancel next year's-put on the charter amendment to cancel next year's election because this would be perfect as a charter amendment next november should that election still occur. and a good reason we should not go 19 months without a local regular election, and finally, i hope that the next version after the amendments are made today and this matter is continued to call of the chair, to again clean up the 18 different sections and perhaps a

deeper look can be made of appendix a to the charter and all of those various complicated lengthy provisions about retirement benefits and where possible without changing our denying any benefits or obligations to simply streamline the sections and as i suggested, having just a simple pointer to a new section about administrative hearings regarding forfeiture would reduce the amount of verbiage in those 18 different sections and i would encourage you to ask mr. porianda to advance that work. again, thank you- >> is there any additional public comment on this item? >> yes. we have one more. can we have our caller, please? >> hi. my name is

(inaudible) i live in san francisco. hearing this, i really agree with the previous speakers. we should be holding our public servants accountable. i think (inaudible) that we are going back and check maybe (inaudible) this is especially alarms because it happened at sfuc, we have people retiring andt noholding accountable making decisions before they retire, which (inaudible) very upset. i really hope with city hall we could have better standard that we can have in place so it wont be hurting people living in the city. i

really applaud you for bringing this up and we have more discussions how this can be done. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public speakers? >> that completes the list of public comment. >> public comment is closed. let me just say if i could have made this retroactive i would have but it is a vested right and i was advised that to be valative of the law and if we include in a charter amendment and it was voted affirmatively by the voters it would be legally highly vulnerable, so it is not something that can or should be done. the right to a pension is very important and very sacred so i understand why that case law exists, and then as to one of the

commenters comment repeated comment over a number of meetings about collapsing all of the sections and with no disrespect to that commenter, competent counsel disagrees. i will make a motion to amend in the long title the date of november 8, 2022 to november 7, 2023 and do so in section 1 on page 1 at line 16. i believe those are all the places the date occurs on that motion a roll call, please. >> motion to amend. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> and then i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair and look forward to working with our partners in labor and various bargaining units to bring some

proposal hopefully something close to what we have before us now to the ballot next year or maybe the year after. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes on the motion to continue the matter to call of the chair as amended. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> next on the agenda is charter amendment third draft to amend the charter of city county of to set forth requirement when the city amends the planning code to allow for additional residential numerical density or height the developer agrees to subject the new residential unit in the development other then affordable housing unit to rent control. the amendment to amend the code to establish as residential numerical high density. to allow the board to amend had planning

code to exceed those limits if the ordinance requires reg ural tore agreement to subject all dwelling units in the project other then affordable housing to rent control as election to be held on november 8, 2022. >> thank you mr. young. and thank you to my cosponsor supervisor chan, preston and walton. colleagues, as you know for over a half century, we have had rent control in the city and county of san francisco as to units built prior to june of 1979, but we have in part labored under the impression they were not making rent control anymore but that is not the case. we have found at the former delwebb site trinity on market at 8 indeed by contract rent control can be

granted going forward, even after the costa hawkins act of 1990. we did that again at park merced and while i first proposed it i think in 2003 for accessory dwelling units, i guess i was a little ahead of my time for rent control to apply to accessory dwelling units with a costa hawkins waver. that became the will of this board a decade later and adu were subject to rent control and then supervisor mandelman in the legislation that we passed last week on it second reading relative to multi-plexes 4-flex, 6-plex, rent control became a part of that legislation. this charter amendment would actually allow rent control on any

project where there was not state preemption and additional density and height. with the under the theory that the market rate rents of today become the affordable rents of tomorrow. i realize this is not without controversy, and to that end, we have amended this and we are now on the third draft with a amendment that allowed for the board of supervisors by ordinance to establish a grace period or phase-in period not to exceed 15 years. in the future there have been ordinances like adu and rent control effective date 1 but there may be instances and can data why there should be a grace period and this charter amendment incorporates that language. i think we should give it a

whirl. we have heard the controller's analysis. there is no economic impact analysis report, and i commend to you colleagues and would like the board of supervisors to have the chance to put it on the ballot and prepare to make a motion to snd this to the full board as a committee report where it will sit tomorrow and can be voted on the following week july 26. any members of the public who would like to testify on this item? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak and joining in person line up to speak at this time. those listening call 415-655-0001. meeting id is 24834359050 press pound and pound again. press

star 3 to enter speaker line. wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. we have 3 callers in line to speak at this time. >> first speaker, please. >> fan cisco acosta again. first and foremost we need to do data assess ment on all the rent (inaudible) secondly, we need to do a needs assessment on all the public housing that was built by department of defense that you supervisors allowed some developers to rehab and now they are charging market rate value.

this is most-importantly to be seen in the bayview hunters point. the thousands of units were under rent control and now the property manager are charging a market price value, so this ordinance, this charter amendment ordinance is flawed because we need to do a needs assessment on the rent control units that we have lost thousands of them. we know about it. one of you supervisors knows more about it, but just like noting it. are we going further with just are promises about so called rent control units and

(inaudible) rent control will be really affordable for those making 80 $80 thousand and below. let's get real. $80 thousand and below. so, stop (inaudible) broad daylight. >> next speaker, please. >> so, i don't recommend that you guys give this a whirl. effectively what you are doing is guaranteeing there isn't any request for additional density or height. no developer no rational developer is going to construct or make investment where the rate of return is guaranteed less then the rate of inflation. this is

just--misunderstanding basic economics. yeah, i think this is misguided. if somebody thinks this will increase the number of houses that are under rent control, they are delusional. that's all. >> next speaker. >> caller you can proceed. moving to the next caller. that line was unattended. >> hi. so, i kind of think this isn't comprehensive as previous callers stated. it seems like it is ignoring some of the other details. i as well as any other san

francisco who lived and rented in the bay areas knows of at least one story of moving into an apartment where they knew the previous tenant paid like maybe half and despite it being the rent control unit, so i think we really need to do a deeper dive on a different rent control possibility. we need way more comprehensive rent control. i think density is good for sure, but from what the first caller said, i think he makes a really good point about the rent control homes like (inaudible) and landlords just deciding to go for market rate. in general, we need more rent control and more affordable housing, more social housing it needs to be

(inaudible) developers i dont think are going to be incentivized (inaudible) [unable to understand speaker] try something better that would be actually affordable and subsidized by the city. i dont know, more comprehensive rent control, i don't think this is it. i yield. >> thank you. we are going to try to revisit our unattendeded line at this time. >> hi, sorry i'm waiting for another item. >> okay, thank you very much. hit star 3 to be added to the

line once you are ready to speak. thank you. that completes the callers for the item. >> thank you mr. young. public comment is closed. and let me just say a up couple things, one about the larger benefit of rent control beyond the rent. it is my experience, rent control has really stabilized communities. the fact that i can go around the neighborhood that i live in and see the people that i know whether they are poets or north beach characters and the fact they have been there and continue to live there and age in place is in large part a function of rent control and eviction protections and i hope that for every neighborhood. the second thing i would

say is something that i learned from the development industry, which is how construction financing works. construction financing is a function of pro forma that predict initial rent or initial sales prices and that is what a construction loan is based on. now, while that is true, it is also true that capital has many places it can invest, and to that end, the first flip is actually important in where capital chooses to invest which is why i added the ability for the board to impose a phase-in period by ordinance not to exceed 15 years. i realize that this is a (inaudible) to some. i'm actually frankly somewhat surprised that

organizations that claim to want to support the building of all strata of housing including the housing action coalition would be opposed to this, but why dont we let the voters decide and with that colleagues, i like to make a motion to send this item number 6 to the full board with recommendation as a committee report. supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin. i just are want to express my excitement about this moving forward. i are think that it is time for us to really have a conversation locally in san francisco and see where san francisco voters land. i think san francisco voters have actually supported rent control as a policy and we can see that in state measure in

the last 5 years that san francisco voters have actually voted overwhelmingly by majority support rent control. i also support what chair peskin has mentioned, and it is more of a personal story. i think i have said that before and say that again. it is true that if it were not for rent control, i think my late mother would not have been able to stabilize herself as a single mom with two teen age kids in china town in one bedroom apartment until the day she passed away, which is the 3 decades long in china town living in china town serving in china town or working in china town and that was her community and because also of her that when i have my own family we are able to come back to the space and

continue to raise my son to be able to understand where he came from as a chinese american and continue to support china town as a community. i do agree rent control is a one of the solutions, not the only solution, but one of the solutions that really can stabilize a community allowing people to stay here and thrive and raise the next generation. i am a example of that and i firmly believe in rent control and anybody who argue against it, i think that we need to also look at where san francisco is at today. we are one of the most expensive cities in california and in the nation. we have the highest rent in the nation even with pandemic the rent has not really come down and to think about future construction and future development we only seeing rent continue to rise

and people are being priced out. perhaps when they come back for density or whatever it is for the future development it is to really consider rent control as a measure to stabilize san francisco as a whole, so thank you supervisor peskin for all your hard work and your leadership and help us move this forward. today i'm definitely excited to vote in support and to get out to the full board for colleagues to have the discussion and i look forward seeing st. in the november ballot measure. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan for your support. as well as supervisor mandelman who said encouraging words along the way. with that, a roll call, please. >> yes. on the motion to recommend this matter as committee report. [roll call]

>> motion passes without objection. >> could you please read item 7 and 8 together? >> yes. item number 7 is hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance by the mayor to voters are for november 8, 2022 election. to state the city may use public funds to acquire or subdize parking in the golden gate park con course underground facility. item 8 is hearing to consider proposed initiative ordinance ubis mitted for 4 or more superizvooers to voters for the nrfb 8, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the park code to reand reauthorize the golden gate park access and

safety program which makes establishing new recreation open space by limiting private vehicles on certain streets segment in golden guilty park including the jfk drive making certain streets segments one way andsubing bicycle lane and urging additional changes to the improved public access golden gate park and making associated findings earner the vehicle codeism >> these ordance ins were put on the ballot one by the mayor and one by 4 members thof board item 8 and this is a opportunity to discuss them, get public input. they will stay on the ballot unless removed in case of item number 7 by the mayor on or before august 5 or in the case of item 8, by one or more members of the board who signed to put it on the ballot by the

same date, and with that, supervisor mandelman. >> thank you chair peskin. i will be very very brief as this board has talked about-we will have yes, a presentation on item 7 from sarah madeleine, but on 8 in particular, that is basically the item the board spent 12 hours on back in april and countless dozen more of public comment prior to that. i am one of those who believes that san francisco gradual progress toward a car free jfk going back to 1960 is a good move for san francisco and that figuring during the pandemic we can have car free jfk 24/7 was

a positive outcome and grateful to mta staff and rec park staff for the work that they have done on this and for our own transportation authority which analyzed impacts and helped the board think about this back in april back in april 7 of us voted for a package that included car free jfk ever a day, not just some days, and also directed city agencies to look at addresses many of the other impacts and trying to find ways to creatively use the garage and do other things that could address some of the problems with car free jfk. i still believe in what we did in april and item 8 here will give the voters the opportunity to weigh in in support of car free jfk. they will also

have the opportunity to vote on another vision for jfk and great highway and my hope is san francisco continues to move towards i think what is our environmental future and a great car free space every day, but it will be up to the voters and with that, i will get out of the way and let sarah madeleine talk more about item 7 in particular i think. >> yeah, and as mrs. madeleine comes up, i was not yet on the board 24 years ago when this item was passed in 1998, but i was on the board subsequentially in the early 2000 when the board by ordinance had to make a number of decisions and those are referenced in the findings and recitals in this

measure and this is long over due and makes abundant sense. we had with the conversations in the controversery of the closure of jfk the role this garage could play in ameliorating some of the impacts and why on the handful of occasions when i paid an arm and leg to go in there it is half empty and it has-how should we say nicely? not managed optimally and not referring to the fact that this non city entity controller chief financial officer actually absconded with if my recollection is correct, some millions of dollars back when. that was a long time ago, but

bringing this back into the city fold makes a abundant sense and with that very easy introduction, mrs. balered, the floor is yours. item 8 of course is a little more complicated and there will be competing esh measures and folk can vote for one or the other or neither or both. >> thank you. park department. we have few slides which i believe the clerk has and supervisor you gave a better history then i can but for the public edification we are looking at prop a passed by the voters in 1998 and it was a ballot measure that did a variety of things as supervisor peskin mentions allowed for construction of underground garage under the concourse and it created a variety of provictions creating a

pedestrian oasis on the concourse. it is important to note that the way this measure is written, all of those policy priorities and the subsequent resolution adopted by the board are retained. so, the garage as mention ed is a 800 space garage directly under the music concourse providing access to the entirety oof the park but close access to the (inaudible) academy. and prop j puts some restrictions on the use of public funds for the construction of that garage. the garage was constructed through a combination of flil aenthopy and debt by paurking revenues the debt has groung a bit because of the scandal. it sits at $25 million and one of the challenges with adjusting the rates in that

garage because obviously the dbt has to be paid down and has to be covered or they end up in default. so, as we discussed this proposed measure allows the city to spends funds. that is a policy decision that goes through the normal process. it does not require to do that, it simply makes it a possibility. also desolve the concourse authority, which is oddly a independent non profit but also city commission, not had quorum for many years and no longer has a function. it was created to oversee the construction of this garage. and finally, as we discussed the reasoning to do this is create flexibility for us in solving some of the jfk and golden gate park challenges and allows us to really meet our policy

goals through that supervisor mandelman referenced and golden gate park and safety initiative. so, that's it and here with colleagues from mta if there are any questions. >> alright. any questions for mta staff as it relates to item number 7? seeing none, that was pretty easy. any comments-i guess to you supervisor mandelman on item number 8? you kind of made them and i summarized that in so far as a initiative ordinance that gathered signatures has qualified for the ballot. there are two competing measures that revisit the decision of the bord of supervisors and is now going directly to the voters. that was a as you said 12 hour hearing with a 7 to 4 vote, and

the voters can have their crack at it as they whether they want to join the 4 or the 7 members of the board is what is before the electorate come november, unless you or any cosponsors mel guard, darcie or ronen choose to withdraw from the ballot which seems unlikely. let's open item 7 and 8 to public comment. >> yes, members who wish to speak joining in person line up to speak at this time. for those remote calling please call 415-655-0001 and meeting id is 2483, 4359050 press pound and pound again. once connected hit star 3 to enter speaker line. those in the queue wait until the system indicates you are unmuted and that is your queue to begin comment. there does not appear to be anybody in the

room at this time. we have two callers in line to speak on this matter. >> first speaker, please. >> hello, good morning. rachel (inaudible) west side community organized with san francisco bicycle coalition. calling in support of amending prop j so the city can operate the concourse garage and to codify the car free portion of golden gate park. these are important changes and huge step forward making golden gate park accessible for everyone. thank you mayor breed and supervisors for leading and supporting this initiative. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morninging, brian hogman walk san francisco advocacy and policy manager. we support both of these measures. we strongly

support this proposed met measure to measure the 800 space concrs course garage. been around 20years but so under utilized and this allow the city to manage the garage like so man y others and allow flexible prices to achieve (inaudible) better serve older adults people with disabilities and people with neighborhoods far away from the park (inaudible) and sits below the new rerevamped shuttle line. free shuttle line to connect across the park and steps away from car free jfk. thank supervisor chan working to get to the bottom of this issue and thank mayor breed putting forward the legislation as part of the continued leadership on the topic. we also support codified these car free streets within golden gate park. these are not just new free parking to all, they help san francisco

on so many goals this board legislated. it created new routes so people all ages can commute on bikes or scooters or other devices every day getting closer to active transaction portation goals, sped up the 44 bus in line with transit force policy and made a calm and safe street out of the city most dangerous street, high injury corridor (inaudible) thanks to the board. this has gotten better since they legislated this a couple months ago. we heard at the progress hearing last week holding city staff acontable. it is great to hear we are (inaudible) make the shuttle service useable and encourage to see completion of the 20 new free accessible parking spaces kwr two taxi stands outside the (inaudible) >> thank you. can we have our next caller?

>> for all the reasons stated i definitely support car free jfk. i think that is awesome. less cars the better as well as utilizing the parking garage. i think that is awesome and strongly support both of these. i yield. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi. michael (inaudible) district 8 resident just calling to quickly say very much support both of these initiatives going to the ballot. let the voters have their say. we know moving to parking garage the (inaudible) really important step to improving accessibility in the park and eliminating failed defunkt organization that has been a parasite on the people here so let the voters

correct the mistakes of the 1995 measure and take this over and give the voters (inaudible) golden gate park safety access program instead of the much broader more negative petition driven ballot measure so yes, please advance both of the ballot measures to the full board and let the voters have a say. thank you very much. i yield. >> next speaker. >> hello, hi. my name is (inaudible) district 4 resident since 2011 and i also was in richmond for many years. i wanted to also echo the previous speaker spoke that i'm glad these two measures are going into the ballot so the people can have a say because with the park and everything we share in the city it is everyone's so we

should have a say on how we want and what is more convenient for us, because there are a lot of people do feel like their voices are not being heard, and sometimes often times we felt it is the elected officials that have a more of a say then the people who are living here and also being impacted, so i'm glad it is going to the november ballot. okay, that's it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is (inaudible) representing kid safe san francisco. we strungly support both of the measures going to the voters this fall especially on the garage. we improving the governance of the garage and giving the city the ability to solve the problems

plaguing that institution for a long time i think will be a really positive improvement and help us improve accessibility and affordability for people who want to visit the museums but need to drive to the park. thank you for considering both of these and we look forward to seeing them go to the voters. >> next speaker. >> we are double checking to see if there are additional speakers on this matter. that was our last caller. >> okay. public comment is closed, and i will make a motion to file item 7 and 8. >> yes, on the motion to file item number 7 and 8. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> yes. item 9 is ordinance approving the surveillance

technology policy for police department use of non-city entity surveillance cameras. >> thank you mr. young. colleagues, this is the final item on our agenda this morning which was continued from last week discussion. chief scott is probably not going to make it here in time, but what i like to do is speak to a series of amendments that i am proposing, and put those in the file but not make them as amendments to also put in the file amendments that the mayor's office proposed on friday and i think both of these are steps hopefully towards a modicum of consensus. i will also note that in the intervening week the public defender office expressed interest in meeting

with the mayor's office to discuss some of the amendments and i like time for that to happen, all be it i suspect they will not see eye to eye. as to the amendments that i'm going to put in the file, they would allow the police department to live monitor cameras if there is a emergency or circumstance. as we addressed last week i like to-actually the police department i think already said yes to this which was to default to state law regarding retention of sensitive personal information like the location of san francisco as they move about the city. even if they are not engaged in wrongful conduct. allow the police department to request camera footage for purpose of advancing criminal investigation, clarify that in the event of a peaceful protest, protesters

may only be surveilled if there is a emergency or circumstance and finally i think we all noted this in the wake of the roe v wade decision limit to agencies like ice and home land security and create a digital sankuary for (inaudible) when we pass the administrative code chapter 19b back in 2019 that was before for visor chan was on had board but vice chair mandelman was and voted for it. that was a choice to create a forum to engage in just this kind of conservation and make it more transparnt and have more oversight over the use of the complex surveillance technologies that pervade the planet earth and sometimes used in a very invasive and

terrifying way included but not limited to the nation state of china and other places are used as appropriate tools. i very much believe in chief scott, but this is not about chief scott, this is a policy that will outlast this police chief and this board of supervisors. i trusted in forming president obama but technology of this sort fall in the hand of administration of president 45, one has to think a lot about the guardrails and confines around the emergeic technology. i also want to have the time and this actually you think this would have occurred to me earlier, but in the conversation we were having with the chief at our last hearing about the use of the technology, we were

talking about a real time scenario where a police officer asks a store keeper to have access to their with their permission to their technology. what didn't occur to me and i actually discuss would the mayor office this morning is the role the hundreds and hundreds of cameras that community benefit districts and one business improvement district have, which technically even though they are in many case s on public property whether it is our puc poles are private third party cameras and so i want to further delve if to the role because those are hundreds of cameras. there was a article in the new york times a up couple years ago many funded by one who i believe lives in my district because i want to believe that because that is a lot different then the

one-off mom and pops we were talking about last week. to that end, i will include the mayor's suggested amendments and my suggested amendments in the file after this meeting, so you colleagues can look at them and members of the public who are i think we now been inundated with about the same number of those who at a high level without delving into the weeds support this policy and those who oppose this policy. we got fine grain work to do and i would hope that given today is monday, 6 more days to have a meeting of the minds or at least getting to some point of principal disagreement and continue this item for one week. with that, supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin. i am definitely in a space where i think that for the author of the amendments which is the mayor and her administration as well as the pd, i

think that they owe it to the advocates as well as the public defenders office to really have a conversation and have a understanding what are the differences and i think that is critical even though they may not come to an agreement but i think that for the very least they should understand the differences. i think that one of the-part of this policy that i actually have questions, not just-and i appreciate all the amendments that you have proposed today and that is in discussion with the advocates about, i do think part of the policy i have question with is really the implementation and exactly what the protocols will be in place to carry out in the event we come an

agreement about the policy itself. i think those are the technical challenges lugestic challenges that look forward to hearing more from sfpd and want to understand better in the event we do come to agreement with the policy how will those policy actually be implemented and i think both in the legislation and also in the policy that we have drafted. we have not really "spelled out" step by step what that will look like so i need to really educate myself but also look forward to hearing more from sfpd for the explanation not just to me but also the advocates. more communication is always better so i look forward seeing the next 6 days having more communications and i dont think that we are-i think chair peskin you said it before, especially around surveillance policy is we

better-it is better we do it right then do it fast, so i think this is the right step to the right direction. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. are there any members of the public who would like to testify- >> i believe chief scott is with us. >> absolutely, thank you for telling me that. chief scott, you made it. chief. >> hichair peskin. i am here actually and i can come in, but if you have any questions for me or our assistant we can answer questions. we are willing to have those convarsations as supervisor chan just laid out and look forward to doing that. >> thank you chief. the only question that i raise and we can certainly meet about it in the intervening week was really the role that the i

think now hundreds of cameras that the community benefit districts and union square business improvement district have, which i believe but not hundred percent certain would fall under this policy. is that your understanding? this is a new- >> you are correct. >> i am correct. >> yes, sir, you are correct chair peskin. >> so, as i recall, those have a-they are much more sophisticated technology then that which many individual home owners and shop keepers have. as i recall it has the ability to actually be able to read the writing on the back of a cell phone or the front of cell phone at quite a distance. >> some of them are very advanced. not all, but some are, yes, sir. >> got it. i want to

in the intervening week maybe in our discussion about the policy particularly given that these organization which are quasi-city entities. they exist at the will of the board. they can be terminated at the will of the board. we are the entity that not only establishes them and can desolve them or extend them, but collects their funding and conducts their elections. we may want to dif ferentiate between those alter-egos of the city and the other examples that we were using last week when we discussed in committee, but happy to delve down into that with you and mayor office in the intervening week. >> yes. we are happy to do

that. >> i see supervisor safie joins us. >> thank you, ypt to say a few words and give context of my interest in this particular legislation so i want to thank you first and foremost for working with the mayor office to try to get this right. we over-i feel it has been about a year and a half ago put together retail crime working group in that we came up with three really strong recommendations. one was to set up the 10a legislation, thank you there for all that voted for that. it is getting off the ground and beginning to gain momentum. the second thing was the street permitting for illegal vendors for stolen items mainly and the third was surveillance technology and the ability to use surveillance to stop crimes that were

happening in action. two of the big areas identified were this organized retail crime and it is happening and having the police have access to that technology in real time when crimes are happening. we saw the worse example of that last thanksgiving and what was happening in union square so real time access to crimes often times turn violent and can be violent think is very important. the second is open air drug dealing and this is something that i have spoken a lot about and feel very strongly about. it is something that has gained so much more prominence in the city then it ever has before in the sense it is so much more pervasive. there are so many more people out there doing this and we need the tools to be able to stop this illegal activity in real time. it is extremely harming our

communities and harming san francisco so i thank chief scott and his team. i want to thank supervisor peskin for taking this on and working diligently. i dont think the ballot is the right way and glad that the ballot measure was taken off by the mayor because i don't think that would have been the right way. i think we need to have this go through the legislative process and get to the right point where we can all agree that this is something that will be beneficial to the city and done through community input. i know there is a lot of people with reservations and concerns, but there is also a lot of people thatpt to see this move forward as expeditiously as possible with the right input. i am in full support of allowing this to happen in targeted sipuations so look forward seeing-chair did you say you had amendments submitted to the file? >> yes, for the file but not to the legislation. that

is correct. there are-or 5 of them but one of them last week the department already said yes to, so there are 4 remaining. those will become a part of the file after this hearing. and i will say part and you were not at the hearing but part of the questions that we have asked and i also asked off-line is the role that tradition policing has played in making cases around drug dealing as compared to the role that new technologies like real time live monitoring surveillance can play and the realty and a little stuck on this, the realty is, you can watch stuff through a camera, i can take all of you as-i dont need to take you up to street because here as civicsenter and show the corners where

pervasive drug dealing happens. i don't need a security camera for that. i dont need to worry as somebody who is not doing anything wrong or illegal i'm being surveilled about the bottom line, in order to make the case you still need a cop to obtain the product, so i am not sure what other then perhaps a detur rnt what the value added is of pervasive surveillance technology relative to those crimes compared to other incidents where i think there is agreement. around exagent circumstances, i agree the police should have access real time live monitoring to do their work. and part of this may come around broadening and defining what exagent circumstance means. i firmly believe that the existing provisions in 19b

around exagent circumstances would have allowed the police to do live monitoring during the night of looting. the police disagree. i think we can easily look at that. >> what i would say is just from my own experiences that sometimes there is not a officer present and when a crime is occurring to be able to have that crime recorded and have access to the so that monitoring can be reviewed first and foremost but there is a certain amont of deturants and don't think that is in the legislation but having real time evidence and historical evidence i think is extremely important in building a case. i can tell you from my own community we had a series of murders happening in a particular location and this is the deterrent part. once the security cameras were put into

that intersection knock on wood we have been 4 years and counting without any significant violent crime or murders in that area, and so i can tell you that it does have a deterrent factor and in the cases where there was actual access to the footage because warrant were served they were able to arrest and prosecute someone for the last murder and so that was very helpful and those were private cameras and without them case would never have been made and suspects never been identified. >> i think we have little if any disagreement about accessing historical footage whether it is for drug dealing crimes, whether it is for theft, looting or violent crimes. and by the way, third party cameras have

regularly in practice been available not only to law enforcement and prosecutors but also have been used by the public defender to exonerate clients. there is no-i think there may be more clarification in the policy around access and use of historical footage for making cases, but very little disagreement there at all. >> i look forward work wg you and the mayor office to get this right. >> the fueling is mutual. any s members-thank you chief. we will spend more time this coming week- >> can we ask the chief to answer your question? >> sure. chief. >> the question i heard was how accessing real time footage helped- >> there is difference

between historical footage and live monitoring. >> particularly live monitoring how that is important in terms of building cases and prosecuting cases and so can you respond to that? >> yes. i will give you a make succinct in terms of the drug dealing question asked. as chair peskin pointed out we have corners in the city, intersections blocks where there is pervasive drug dealing and in order without the use of technology in order to try to get at those issues basically physically takes officers going a operation where they are hidden or plain closed or even uniform where they are physically present. what typically happens if we go to one corner as this just happened friday and

watched with my own eyes, we go to one corner at larken and eddie and officers are there and they go to the next corner and officers post there, they go to the next corner and constantly playing this game of whack a mole. that is not a very efficient use of our dwindling resources, with the ability to live monitor crimes drug dealing is still a crime, if those corners with permission of owners because every of the places where they went there are cameras there, with permission of owners through this process we would have the ability to monitor those with basically one officer. that officers can call in the resources, can actually understand who the people who are actually dealing drugs because ontimes they are groups of people. not all are doing drugs. they may be a part of the operation but not all dealing or holding. it is

very efficient use of technology to get to the people committing the crimes. woo edont have to post officers we dont have in the multiple locations and thirdly, the cases will be much stronger. i think all of those things will be valued to the city and we are not able to do that at the time. it is inefficient use of resources. it is not just corner they go corner to corner to corner and we have to-if we dont have officers posted or plain clothe officer working the cases you are one corner and they are the next and we dont have enough officers to be on every corner so why we need to have the use of technology to be able to be more efficient with our limited resources and actually be able to do something with

these crimes when they are occurring. >> can i ask a follow up question, chair? can i ask a follow up question? >> yeah. >> chief have you seen your experience with access to live camera can you talk about that and or what you know from what or locales have been able to do using live access to live feeds in terms of criminal cases and activities? >> yes, both experienced that in my former department and most other departments have use of live access and i do understand there has to be guardrails, there has to be policies and we are totally-with that and agreeable to that, but in my personal experiences we have been able to use cameras to see

crimes in progress, have officers respond to those issues with very clear descriptions whether vehicle, the individual is committing the crime whether it be clothing, and be very surgical on making arrests and so it is a much more efficient way to do business. >> thank you >> it just works. >> thank you chief. >> chief, just to get down into what i have been struggling with which is actual implementation practice, are you suggesting as i raised earlier that in relative to the drug dealing example that you would be requesting to the district cameras for this purpose? trying to understand what this means in

practice? >> if there is a community benefit district camera at a location where we are having those type of complaints and those type of criminal violations, then yes we ask permission. the way the policy is written, it is not a blanket authorization, if we do a operation we have 24 hours and that operation with that camera stops and we have to reask so not a blanket-larkb and eddie carries a district camera at that corner and the other thing--this is a community thing. i was out there one time talking to a business manager of one of the location and points to the camera and says how which you are not using this technology with the drug dealers all over the place and it is because we can't. they spent good money to put the cameras up and we

cant have access to deal with the most pervasive problem on the corner. >> chief, i apologize for my law enforcement ignorance but if you see something on a camera, your officers, is that in and of itself enough to make an arrest? >> that gives us probable cause to engage with that person. of course, ideal situation, the evidence would be there. there are narcotics on them or see where they are hiding it or stashing it, then that ties it up to make a solid constitutionally valid arrest. the cam era in and of itself is not the whole picture but it gives us the ability to be a lot more accurate with arresting the right

people, detaining the right people, understanding where the evidence is because often times you can see that. i had experience in my career where you can see where the person is hieing gh hiding the stash of narcotics or gun or whatever they are doing because you have access to the camera and able to look live and call officers and say there is narcotics in the wheel well of that chevy truck on the other sidef the street. these are how we use these technologies to do our jobs better and more efficiently. i hope i answered your question. >> historically when the pd made cases in drug dealing, that was by bust operations? >> well, by bust is one way that we get to that problem or try to address that problem. there is also operations where

we post officers and they watch what happens and then they call officers or react to what they see. i think that was your question and point earlier, the issue is if the problem is moving around when they know we are there that you center have the ability to access the cameras on the corners you dont have to have all the officers posted officers posted up. if they go one corner to the next corn er and this isn't done with permission or evidence the crimes are occurring. this is not willy-nilly. supervisor chan was asking about the process and technicalities, but this is not willy-nilly process. this only happens with proper evidence and so captain can give the authorization to request permission from the third party.

>> understood. in terms of staff resource, obviously if you have a staff that is live monitoring cameras for whatever purpose that is obviously a officer that is not on the street, but what you are conteneding you need less officers on the street because the live monitoring would allow you to see where the drug dealers is moving? and that is the efficiency because the camera doesn't arrest anybody? >> correct. the efficiency is you can do that and address that issue with less officers. it takes a lot more officers to address multiple locations because you have to put people in place to watch the activity or if you (inaudible) have a team of people to do that. you can do it more efficiently so yes you can do the operations

and make arrests with less officers then you can having to do it with officers being at every location. >> relative to the 24 hour temporal limitation, which by the way i think is important and i appreciate, my reading of that in the policy was that was a 24 hour period that you could continue live monitoring after the event that triggered the live monitoring, right? you could have drug dealing going on for 96 hours, you are monitoring and go 24 more hours, are you thinking that live monitoring is automatically limited to 24 hours because that isn't how i read the policy? >> once we are done with the operation, we have 24 hours-the way it reads, after 24 hours that permission ceases, so we have to renew it if

there is continuing activity and are likely there probably will be because these things dont change over night, but that is a check and balance in place so there is no blanket authorization and i know one of the worries and concerns we keep hearing is that potential abuse of privacy issues of people not dealing drugs just minding their business and being surveilled. that isn't the intention here at all and why those are pretty strict limitations on it. the way i read it and way it was designed is intent do the operation where the crimes are occurring 24 hours after that the activity has ceased. if there is renewal that process has to be renewed with approval process, the same process. >> understood. where i and maybe there is policy language that we can try to figure out, but where i become

concerned about continuous live monitoring which is what i don't want san francisco to become. to extent there is for sadly many many decades been continuous drug dealing in certain areas including not far from where we are sitting, because that crime is going on 24 hours a day there could be live monitoring 24 hours a day and doesn't cease. there could be 24 hour lag period but can lead to continuous monitoring, what you are saying which is more appealing, it is for the duration of your law enforcement operation and maybe we can fine-tune it to make it the duration of the operation rather then for the duration of the ongoing crime. this is very different world then when you have contribute information somebody is coming with a bomb or gun

and you say we have information someone is coming and need live monitoring because we want to see the person arrive. as to this type of crime and it is a crime and scorj, i want to make sure it isn't by default continuous live monitoring in certain areas. maybe there is language we can noodle through on limiting to the duration of the operation. which is where you are seeking efficiencies and i am seeking people's reasonable expectation of privacy. but we are getting there. supervisor safie more questions answers? no. colleagues. supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin, now that we are diving deep into this my question is to

chief. i understand you're not going about this in a willy-nilly way, but explain to me or educate me then, in the event that you do actually have officer doing live monitoring, who are the officesers and how are they identified and how are they deemed qualified to do live monitoring and what sort of i guess in the situation who is allowed in that space to do live monitoring? what are the protocols that you put in place or can we put in someplace place or spell it out in the policy? >> in the policy on page 6 it spelled out. i can read them off, but page 6 it spells out live monitor, limited to the following roles upon authorization. it is police officer (inaudible) assistant inspector and inspector sergeant lieutenant or

captain and these are people operational. if i work in the tenderloin and assigned to address you name the corner or block and request because of whatever information that i have that-we are talking narcotic dealing so i'll stay on that. i had that information, i play out the request to the captain, the captain approves and then that person-the approval is given and the person or the entity request the requested entity approves because that is two part thing, they can say no, but if they say yes, then that officer would have the ability or sergeant or lieuten ouisiana tenant or captain to monitor. >> is there a log or database specified to date of the monitoring time of the

monitoring and the name and title of the individuals that is conducting the monitoring? will that be a log or data base available for public access? >> yes, that is laid out in the policy too. it is on-let me find the page here. page 7 it is laid out what the process is. the documentation the logs and if you look at the bottom of page 7 in the policy note in the report or (inaudible) time date surveillance footage requested approved denied nob flaub (inaudible) in the case of live monitoring, members note in ins dependent report or record the captain approval date and time of access, duration and outcome of access. upon implementation of the internal record management system note this

information in the system. so, that is the process as it is laid out currently supervisor chan. >> no problem. how will we as public access that information? do we sunshine? do we conduct sunshine record request or will that be report to the police commission or will that actually be a dashboard published on sfp d or city government website? >> all the above. those can be sunshined and applicable laws would apply there. also, laid out in the policy there is a annual report that the sfpd will do as well. >> great. so, then i think my next question is, i had this very same question as i last week and look forward to more communications and more language to defining

significant events with public safety concern and how is that really a different shade between (inaudible) events as well as first amendment events. i think when it comes down to specific scenarios like a drug case to be honest i think there is--i have questions and conflicted because when a crime happened and you obtain the footage retroactively my assumption that still allows you to identify individuals which is happening. i believe there are cameras on public spaces like dolores park not live monitoring or live cameras but i believe that both sfpd and park rangers can elect it go back to the footage and obtain the footage in

the event a crime occurs and identify a suspect. i again i have more questions about how effective it really live monitoring versus obtaining footage and go back and go back once a crime occurred. but, will we be able to get more clear language and get better definitions between exagent event, significant events and have a clear differentiation su significant events versus first amendment? >> yes, i can try to explain some of that now and will in more detail with you, the committee or some of the people you mention you want to have conversations with.

the significant event-let's say you have an event outside (inaudible) and that is an event we have annually in our city. 10s oof thousands of people attend over the weekday that these events occurred and we have had through private security hired by the event organizers there is a very elaborate usually security camera system at that event which is a good thing. we outside of exagent circumstances are prohbed from accessing the information, so when you have premter incurgzs which we have and you done know the person coming across the fence or through the fence or under the fence is bringing into this environment, it is really important to be able to

get that information quickly and get to that information quickly. as we know, we have seen events that have gone really really terrible. gilroy festival is one of them. the idea is to be able to use the technology to do what everything we can to try to insure a safe event and yes, historically if somebody came in and committed some heinous crime we would have the ability to do that after the fact, but from my professional opinion it much better to address the issue immediately and not have to wait until somebody is hurt and or killed and say we got footage so we can find the person and these large events they can go badly really really quickly. >> thank you, but i have to say and i'm not a attorney

at all, i--i work with many of them but let me say there are going to be times i have question and doubt. isn't it that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? i think that goes back to live monitoring at which time do you determine someone is committing crime versus going back retroactively to look at the footage? i am going to stop my questioning here because i think that again like i said i look forward to hearing from those who are attorneys and experts like the public defenders and some others to have conversation directly with you chief and your team to really hammerering out the language that is actually not only applicable but reach the balance between public safety and also first amendment rights. i'm going to throw out one scenario and not expecting you to respond chief,

is that as we know a lot of first amendment activity does take place around civic center and plaza and should continue on but it is closely adjacent to the tenderloin and at which point do we say to ourselves that we can first amendment activity and drug crime and drug dealing? i look forward hearing more and learning more from you chief scr the team as well as those working on first amendment rights issues. thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. >> thank you chief. why don't we open up for public comment? any members of the public who like to comment on item number 9? >> yes members of the public who wish to speak on this item line up to speak at the imto.

for those listening remotely call 415-655-0001 enter id24834359050 press pound and pound again. once connected press star 3 to enter the line. for those ing the queue continue to wait until the systemenedicates you are unmuted and you can begin comment. we have 45 callers with 27 in line to speak. chair peskin, do you want to continue with the 2 minute speaking time at this time? >> 27? >> we have 27 in line, 45 on the line. speaker time will be 1 minute per person. thank you. >> resident of district 9 i want to voice opposition to the policy and confused you are talking new amendments to this thing, but everything i hear exists like if there

is a crime committed the police can go to resident or business get the footage. if there is a problematic corner go through the appropriate process and get a warrant to do surveillance. that is standard policing so not sure why-if there is a emergency situation they can get approval so removing approval process and so you are some are progressive supervisors like it should be dead in the water. not sure why it is consurivation. the police need less tools not more. >> if you like to speak on the matter and in the room line up at this time. can we have your next inperson speaker, please? >> also a resident of district 9 and business owner midmarket. i also want to express my opposition to the ordinance and proposed amendment. it is

shocking and flightening overreach of power beiand anything that happened here. i think this ordinance should be considered transparent to free society. there is discussion doing this right opposed to fast but it should be obvious things not worth doing are not worth doing right or fast however that might be. civil liberties are by the nature obstacles to move and sufficient use of power by the state. all arguments are things would be easier if people had fewer rights and less expectation of privacy. again, not doing are not worth doing well. >> thank you. >> thank you. no further members of the public in the room i will move on to public call line. can we

have the first caller, please? >> i talk to friend family and work colleagues and no one is in favor of this proposal. we all see it for what it is, extreme overreach and threat to first amendment right to privacy and freedom of speech. we are not only alarmed by the prospect living in big brother environment but the liberal effect it could cause when other state and federal law enforcement agencies use the shared footage to target peaceful protester black and brown communities and

(inaudible) i urge to reject the proposal and protect our civil rights. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi. i hope you can come to a reasonable agreement here given that san francisco like myself put in hundreds of hours to push for improved public safety and quality of life. stores repeatedly looted our streets a crazed and depressing dug den and people getting seriously hurt and dying and we are waiting for the sensible communities effort to show. our new da in partnership with the police are working to turn things around. give them the basics they need in 2022. this legislation is about creating a network expanding access and allowing real time monitoring. some bring up privacy concerns, private camera footage is not off limits. there is

no privacy in public. it is legal to photograph and record in the street. you dont want to do the thing you dont have to. that being said, the ordinance is opt-in. it is helpful to solve crime. some are more interested in the dysfunction of the streets. this is (inaudible) and yield the rest of my time. thank you. >> are thank you, next caller. >> hi. (inaudible) woman of color and resident of district 6 over 15 years serving on the (inaudible) and also serving on the (inaudible) street service basic (inaudible) cofounder of [difficulty hearing speaker] where our communities are most concerned with public safety. please approve the surveillance technology for non

city surveillance camera. the ordinance blanshs the rights and public safety. business owners have the choice to opt in or not and individuals who own private cameras with consent as a result the claims on privacy infringement are false. the ordinance applies to specific circumstances including sfpd officer misconduct. it is case specific protect first amendment rights and limits how long footage can be retained. again, i echo the opinion to approve. >> thank you. next caller. >> i strongly oppose the ordinance especially because there are already resources available and the

examples given for the mass invasion of privacy is people getting in(inaudible) we already know the drug dealers are and what they are doing and this has increable potential to be abused from your predecessors on and on and on and with someone like that there needs to be good reasoning and not hearing good reason for this weapon to be in the hands of the state. >> thank you. next caller. >> there is a good reason, which is i want everybody to understand what is going on out there. the drug trade in the tenderloin and soma is dominated by two gangs one of which is affiliated with the (inaudible) cartel. they are out there selling

methand fentanyl that is destroying people and destroying families, and causing people to cause other crimes. allowing the police to access video cameras will have the evidence they need to hold the dealers accountable and shut down the open air drug market so please stop protecting the cartel. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> yes. hi. (inaudible) asian hate crimes have gone up (inaudible) asians are number one target in san francisco. every asian senior is a victim or violent crime or knows someone who is. many seniors are attacked (inaudible) stop

asian hate, please pass the legislation. my name is (inaudible) >> thank you. next caller. >> hello supervisors. i'm a 28 year rezden of san francisco. sounds like the particulars are in negotiation. i'm in support of the policy. it is very important to balance privacy and public safety but given the type and volume of crime in the city more strategies are needed to help protect law-abiding citizens and businesses not less. the suggested policy isn't massive expansion of current legislation, important tool law enforcement can use in very specific circumstances to help solve crimes. the organized crime group intentionally use tactics to overwhelm law enforcement if you don't want to use cameras and surveillance tools the other logical option is support

a fullyfunded sfpd according to the law which is not happening right now. i believe it is crucial to the future of our city we have real time access to footage that help law enforcement deal with mass looting and open air drug dealing which is negatively impacting- >> thank you. next caller. >> jeremy miller (inaudible) we without reservation condemn the overreach by the mayor and san francisco police department. the categories of circumstances and significant offense are ill defined and completely open the door to gross civil rights violations. it has nothing to do with preventing open air drug crime as pointed out by others and the other examples hopping the fence or

people republic of china are ludicrous (inaudible) how about the fact muslim targeted by the nsa occurred in the bay area. this is fascism make no mistake and anyone who votes for this enables fascism and this will probably go well beyond the boarders should it pass. no no no. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi.

>> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> hi. my name is salina and just want to say yes yes yes. i support this legislation, so many-several people mentioned existing resources. so, existing resources did not work and this is why we are in this fairly different dynamic. lots of crime been going on for the last 2 to 3 years.

(inaudible) people are leaving, people are fleeing our city because they don't feel safe. my mom who is a senior, she refused to leave the house because she doesn't feel safe in the streets. we have tourist continuously being belongings being stolen by visiting our city and nothing is being done, so this is not only a city wide issue. this is all this-everyone knows san francisco is messed up and sorry for the language but (inaudible) >> please note i apologize for cutting people off, but speaker time for this item is 1 minute per person that is being timed. can we have our next caller, please?

>> hello, my name is (inaudible) speaking out today to share my concern about proposed changes to sfpd policy regarding camera access. as someone born and raised in san francisco i was proud in 2019 our city implemented surveillance technology ordinance becoming a model for responsible use of technology that showed caution protecting people privacy and foresight and protecting the community before technology can out pace the speed of legislation regulation. current rules give sfpd access to cameras to conduct investigations of crime and a person who worked with officers to provide crime scene footage from privately operated cameras at my work. the proposed changed do not show the same value of caution and guided by fear and desire to

react impulseively and punishing the city most vulnerable community. >> next caller. >> [waiting for translation]

thank you. >> thank you. just like to note we did not receive request for translation services today, so we do not have any translator present. we will attempt to provide translation at a later time. can we have our next caller? >> hello.

[no translation requested] >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hello. >> please proceed. >> hello. hello. >> please proceed. you can talk.

>> [no translation requested] >> yes yes yes. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> good afternoon. (inaudible) also a resident of district 8. i like to thank supervisor peskin for hearing the community concerns (inaudible) move forward to engaging with the language as committee continues to item. there is a need for additional amendments to the legislation to safeguard civil liberty and privacy. address many issues supervisor chan raised by process and implementation and include sfpd to specify a process

obtainic access to cameras, (inaudible) and three imprubing the language of the retention period provision to put the rights of criminal defendants. there is questions which cameras fall under the policy. (inaudible) hundreds of cameras operated by community district and at the time the networks set up assured the public the cameras are not used for live monitoring. there are questions (inaudible) >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> good afternoon supervisors (inaudible) in support of whatever this ends up looking like but in support of this surveillance. i think supervisor peskin made a great point that this can also be

used for evidence that someone did not commit a crime. this can be used by the defense. what struck me from the very beginning with all of this conversation and for as long as this has been under discussion is this seeks to get at the truth and i think if we look from that lens of getting to the truth, it becomes very important piece of what everyone in law enforcement and on the defense side and the whole system should have access to and very fondly in support of this. thank you. >> thank you, can we have our next caller? >> hello? >> you can talk. >> hello. >> [translation not

requested] yes yes yes. thank you. >> thank you, can we have our next caller? >> hello, my name is (inaudible) care san francisco bay areaism i want to appreciate the amendment that supervisor peskin has been working on amendments on this proposal. our community is concerned with any effect on privacy and civil liberty especially with the consequence of live monitoring of the cameras. i know the

language we felt that it is broadly defined in terms of significant event or circumstance we want to make sure that our privacy is protected and communities are protected from a vast over-reach so we hope the board of supervisors will continue to amend the language in order to insure these protections on our community. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> good afternoon. (inaudible) last week chief scott said what he would do. if we have information about the possibility of shooting ingredient for an event are there to happen it makes sense to tap if to (inaudible) today made similar comments aroungd

drug dealing. sfpd is discussing constant surveillance oferk the ingredient of future crime. some communities need to be surveilled at all time. (inaudible) this is the type of community surveillance the court rejected, you should do so again (inaudible) over the last 2 decades yet knife crime went up between 90 percent between 2011 and 2021. cameras dont stop crime. doing that require addressing underlying social issues. >> can we have our next caller? >> hello. hello can you hear me? >> yes, we can, please proceed. >> yes, this is (inaudible) brown san francisco

bay view national black newspaper and i absolutely no no no for any expansion on surveillance, especially with it the police department which mirrors so many police departments throughout this country who don't want any accountability for their corrupt action. absoluteply no. thank you very much. >> thank you. next caller. hi, you are- >> hundred percent yeah. sorry, hundred percent yes. please support this legislation. supervisor safia said because the cameras were put up in intersections with multiple murders 4 years ago murder and violent crime went down and for the 1 murder that happened the camera was ent grl

making the case-we know lives are saved because of the presence of them cameras what more do we need? to keep san francisco safe this needs to be passed. please pass the legislation. hundred percent for it. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi. my name is tom (inaudible) i live in golden gate heights (inaudible) i would very much encourage you to pass this legislation. what we have seen over the past year is the average san francisco wants our government not by ideology but realty. what works and doesn't work. this is a good balance between public safety and privacy. it gives the ability to quite frankly to respond to significant events.

thank goodness we have not have significant shooting or violent event like (inaudible) hopefully we never do. but we need to be able to respond and police need to be able to respond as well as other significant events so thoroughly encourage you to support this and if needs to be tweaked, tweak it, but let's make sure we run our government by realty, not ideology. >> thank you. next caller. >> this policy and any like it must be rejected instantly and decisively. jackson a district 8 voter. there is no evidence sfpd is able to use camera footage to keep anyone safe. public safety isn't in their mandate. a human being can be criminized by federal state or city government. the board

cannot stop this happening so must not allow the police department to gather maintain and distribute data used to persecute individuals who may find the target of political violence. muslim individuals ung documented individuals black and brown individuals and individuals seeking to terminate pregnancy understand this. (inaudible) who might find in the position in the future. this surveillance is a keystone for modern technologyized jenicize mptd you think it cannot happen here and you are gravely mistaken. you cannot give isthe kind of power to our militarized law enforcement on the hope that-- >> can we have our next caller? >> hello. >> hi, please proceed. >> hello, elliot and condemn this proposal. this is abuse

of power. weaponized against the poor and black and brown communities. you do not care about the people of san francisco. this is not investment in community. more police is never the answer. more police resources is never the answer. arrest and punishment will not make the problems go away. spending more on policing doest nat lower crime rate. police do not prevent mass shootings with over 300 this year. look at (inaudible) mass incarceration and legalize slavery in the country. you say you want to get it right but there is no way to get it right. if you thing this fault anything you are delusional (inaudible) >> thank you, next caller. >> hi. michael (inaudible) resident of district 8. i urge you-i appreciate the amendment discussed earlier and chief scott taking time to discuss the policy but urge

you to reject this policy. i think the current surveillance access policy sfpd has is more then sufficient. events of the last year has shown sfpd has no interest in addressing crime they witness live and in person. when dispensaries are robbed in front of them or (inaudible) on muni buses they give access to live surveillance isn't going to change anything. the very specific circumstances that chief scott laid out is covered by the existing policy where sfpd can access live cameras when there is risk to injury or death or handled by their officers on the street attempting to use live surveillance to tackle street dealing is just recycling the same failed policy-- >> your speaking time is up. can we have our next

caller? >> (inaudible) hi, my name is laya a small business owner as well as district 8 voter. i oppose this police do not need more access to live suvalence camera. this is ogross over reach. anyone who things this is going to improve public safety is delusional. you sound rich. you are out of touch and that is absolutely ridiculous. policing never increased public safety ever. it is also doesn't stop crime. there is minority report this is scary and should oppose this. i echo what connie chan said, reject it in the water. >> thank you. can we have our

next caller? >> david (inaudible) before i start, we have not heard the 30 second warning and that is most important when there is one minute time limit so starting my time now. i intened to read the proposed amendment carefully. i support-excuse me? >> go ahead. >> okay. i intend to read the proposed amendment, support discussion but also the city administrator including coit, city attorney, district attorney, emergency (inaudible) i refer to comments from last week as well. the written-there should be a written approval of camera use camera data use by the captain or higher rank that in my opinion need not just be put in

the investigatory file but also a public file related to surveillance policies and that approval may have comments and conditions that approval also may be extended if circumstances warrant and should be included in writing. i think the audit language that was read from page 7 should be rewritten so it is more clear to everyone involved. those are my thoughts at this time. thanks for listening. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm (inaudible) as a long time volunteer community activist in district 10 i'm calling on behalf of many concerned residents who strongly urge to support mayor breed (inaudible) make san francisco a safer city. in my 30 years of community work to

assist elderly and non english speaking victims many crimes are not reported because of language barriers and lack of surveillance to document and homicides. by the way, as a city that prides itself on immigrant rights i'm wondering why this proceeding did not provide translation so that the previous callers message were not conveyed. they were in support of the legislation and i am also in support of it on behalf of thousands of many of the people who could not call in today and think the procedure should be changed so it helps people to call in and provide the input. thank you. >> time has elapsed. can we have our next caller? >> hi. i'm (inaudible) thank you for listening to the public opposition to (inaudible) i support the policy

amendment and hope the committee go further to clamp on the policy loop holes (inaudible) attempt to normalize the use of surveillens equipment saying some of the equipment is already in use and procedural to formalize what is already in existence. the chief justification (inaudible) those who speak in support have said the ordinance strikes a balance but they don't care about privacy (inaudible) the fact there are so many amendments in the past week is evidence it has the potential to be (inaudible) surveillance isn't the answer. the idea cameras will help police police themselves is outright ridiculous. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> hello, my name is danny media justice national

organization fighting for the communication (inaudible) tools used to criminalize marginalize communities. we express opposition to the proposal to give access to private surveillance. (inaudible) locking them up. we are especially concerned. example of increase criminalization and (inaudible) in la the police to criminalize protesters and (inaudible) when the chief talked about live surveillance being more efficient it means criminalizing black and brown people and (inaudible) san francisco should work to end racism not encourage it so you have been a example in the past of taking community (inaudible)

>> your time has elapsed. can we have our next caller, please? >> good afternoon, my name is sara lee working in district 6 and want to thank the supervisors listening to community concerns and voice opposition to expanding surveillance capability. i hope if you care about justice and (inaudible) privacy protections and not building (inaudible) thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi, everyone. my point is more around the policing resources that they devoted to this. i know that i interacted several times with sfpd and has video evidence (inaudible) so,

this ordinance passes and even more video is available to the police department i am curious as to sfpd feels it is staffed appropriately to deal with the video and how they prioritize (inaudible) i yield the rest of my time. >> thank you, can we have our next caller? >> hello. my name is nathan limcon. i hope you--hello, i hope you can hear me. nathan limcon a resident of the itisy 39 years and strongly support the legislation and hear concerns how it could be phrased to prevent abuse. it has guardrails as far as authorization and monitored for police activity and wrongful arrest as well. what i'm concerned about is absence of victim advocacy over

here and the hypocrisy serving the underserved when they are being attacked. what i wonder if you think in china town being basically (inaudible) supposed to be a victim of a crime or somebody expressing first amendment rights. i think the police should air on the side of caution. thank you chief scott if we are talking clothing and car license in terms of pursuing- >> speaker time elapsed. can we have our next caller? caller you can speak at this time. it appears to be- >> hi. hello, my line got unmuted like after you requested the next

speaker. anyway, my name is leah (inaudible) i live in d6. i do not support this surveillance. i'm already under constant surveillance. i pass a officers (inaudible) walk to city wall. i dont know why i should trust sfdp. were they (inaudible) killed two homeless people who called for help? i dont know why we trust them giving more surveillance. if they want to push surveillance (inaudible) start arresting those people but leave my the fuc alone. i deserve privacy or privacy is under attack and just need to back off and arrest people who are actually committing major crime. i yield the rest of my time. >> are thank you. can we have our next caller?

>> hello. my name is danielle a resident of district 2. i want to encourage you all to vote no. this is a huge over reach of police power and not the solution to larger systemic ish aoos such as poverty, substance abuse, lack of housing and more. i'm also concern s how this impact san francisco sank ware city status. this is dangerous and example of the mayor and sfpd putting communities at richck and impact minority and already opressed communities the most. many admirable and trustworthy groups are in opposition to this. privacy is a human right and concern san francisco leadsers do not believe in this. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hello. i'm san francisco district 7 resident. actually

out here supporting district 7 business on (inaudible) calling to oppose this increased police surveillance bill and increase police surveillance ordinance, this tactic of reimplementing the war on drugs, the failed war on drugs (inaudible) doing decades already. increase police powing power will not make people safer. shame on the people equating this and pushing this in a effort to stop anti-ation haet because the evidence dozent show increased police power stops crime. it doesn't show that. giving people access to

(inaudible) >> speaker time elapsed. can we have our next caller? >> hi. good afternoon. carelen (inaudible) calling on behalf of the san francisco public fd deer office. we continue to be concerned about sfpd surveillance policy written and want to thank chair peskin listening to community concerns and introducing amendments we look forward reviewing those. we also appreciate chair peskin and supervisor chan thoughtful questions and comments. the writeen gives police unchecked power to monitor live surveillance and collect footage with few limitations. the policy must be a-minded to limit the ability to collect (inaudible) it is critical it also be amended to protect first amendment activities and ban sfpd banning for federal agencies. giving to live surveillance begs the

question will more arrest lead to (inaudible) we know from decades of war on drugs more arrests and incarceration hasn't reduced dug use or sales. >> your time elapsed. next caller, please. >> hi, (inaudible) asking everybody to please vote no on this. the surveillance in san francisco won't (inaudible) and the community it will impact are the communities that need to most help. a lot of people brought up good points about the surveillance in other countries not working to address crime and only way to work to address crime is to work with the people working with the communities that need help the most and working with them figuring what the community needs.

(inaudible) call what it is, it will really just are make (inaudible) allow fascism like enter san francisco and attack the communities we help such (inaudible) hurt them the most and (inaudible) so i- >> speaker time has elapsed. next caller. >> if you want people to stop buying and using fentanyl offer those quhoo use high quality houseer first is the proven way forward. i work in district 5 and condemn further consideration of the measure. it is the people outside when olive in total lack of safety. we can not had arrest out of the conditions that cause people to live outside

including material inequality, ableism, (inaudible) hoarding of housing healthy food and health care. aggressive policing isn't enough so you propose mass surveillance to maintain the system of inequality and (inaudible) splitting the force labor for the profit (inaudible) don't propose you do nothing. meet the rights of all people. i'm a descendant of san francisco who died being evicted from a institution just like laguna honda. a live camera isn't what he needed. a quality health care and home for every human. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi. my name is melanie (inaudible) resident of d6 speaking on behalf of youth for alliance. like to thank the rules committee for the leadership-this is measureed step ing the right

direction (inaudible) terrifying mass shooting in union square last thanksgivings is a circumstance under the ordinance. (inaudible) thousands of sector jobs without security and safety we lose the econom ic core which is outcome of the residents, (inaudible) employ 40 percent of the work force of color. unfair the work environment is unsafe especially when we have the tools available for safety. not only are ewoo able to hold people acoubtable for bad action and use the tools to deter crime and (inaudible) thank you and we support this ordinance. >> thank you. can we have the next caller? >> hi. my name is (inaudible) asian american

advancing justice calling to express the strong opposition to the ordinance. operate in violation of the first amendment right and allow sfpd to continue to discriminate against surveill activist immigrants and communities of color. sfpd has a long history from illegally spying on activist to lying about the participation in the joint terrorism task force with the fbi for years to target black arab (inaudible) asian law caucus advocateed for communities in the bay area over 50 year and believe the policy is insufficiently vetted and posed graib risk to the civil rights of the community who stand to be the most impacted. thank you for your time. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hello. >> hi. please

proceed. >> hello. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi, my maim is marina a voter in district 4 and i'm calling to say i support your surveillance and urge you to

vote yes. this is another tool to fight crime. business owner can opt in or not. it is case specific and protects first amendment rights. please do the right thing and vote yes. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi, my name is lidia (inaudible) i am a executive director (inaudible) one of the oldest anti-violence organizations in the country. since 1997 provided counseling service and support groups to queer and trans(inaudible) calling to state our opposition to this policy. the last 16 years i worked with survivors of violence who not only experience abuse from partners but also experience racism home phobic and transphobic violence

from the chief. spying on activist misusing the dna of sexual assault survivors. (inaudible) make us less safe. this is why my organization is in opposition of this policy. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hello, my name is jerry resident of district 4. this is overreach on civil liberties and cannot allow this to happen. sfpd already shown they have their own surveillance and access to so many others and continue to show they don't value our citizen rights. they are already illegally peaceful protest, misuse dna (inaudible)

24 hour surveillance cameras on wheels. this will also compromise san francisco (inaudible) there are too many red flags. sfpd is wasting the funding on propaganda to pray on public fear. same failed war on drug policy and continue to fail over and over and over and over again, please reject this proposal. thank you. >> thank you. we are going to do one last check to see if the are additional callers who would like to speak. that our last caller. public comment for item 9 is closed and as previously discussed i will make a motion to continue this one week to the meeting of july 25 on that motion a roll call,

please. >> motion to continue the matter to july 25. [roll call] motion passes without objection. >> and we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]