weekend that they were broken into and someone mentioned earlier that there are non-profits that are installing cameras and giving sf p.d. access to surveillance data will make this seniors feel safer since we have seen anti-asian crime increase in the last year. i would ask the supervisors to vote yes and restore confidence. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: the drug trade in the tenderloin and soma is by two gangs and one with the sinaloa cartel. everybody knows this, the supervisors know this, the mayor knows this. they are selling fentanyl that is destroying people and destroying families. we need to use this technology to fight back against the cartels. and we are losing.

if sf p.d. needs to see who i'm a date with, so be it. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is grace coleman, a resident of district 7 and i own a small business in district 9. i'm calling against this policy. i do not believe giving access to sf p.d. to our surveillance cameras is a violation of our privacy. you are consistently receiving more financial support than our vulnerable members of our community. for those in the community, i promise this won't increase your safety. i implore you to undescribe from the

delusion of this fascist fearmongering and ask that you displace this with compassion instead of the threat of more violence. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: good afternoon rules committee members. i strongly oppose this policy. this policy goes directly against the will of the people. you must reject this proposal. san francisco has more police officers per capita than any city in california. and sf p.d. continues to advocate their duties while blaming anyone other than themselves. >> sf p.d. can't do something as easy as removing a metal barricade and they are going to give them wide surveillance

video. we need to do a better job without demanding more money. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> # public speaker: hi, i'm a district 9 resident for 20 years. i'm absolutely # opposed to this policy and a lot of speakers opposed to it. i'm in agreement with their argument. i want to say to those who do support the policy who think this is going to increase their safety, this is not going to happen. if the crime happens, the police can do what they always have done which is get a warrant and look at the footage. if you think that someone is going to be watching your cameras to be sure no one is watching you, that is no way that's going to happen. >> thank you. next caller, please.

>> public speaker: hi, my name is cooper in district 8. i am against this policy because it poses a # threat to people of san francisco. public safety will not be improved by investing and standing in police powers. i strongly urge the committee to oppose the policy. thank you. >> thank you. >> next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is jan and i'm in district 2, and i wanted to recall that last week supervisor safai told us just a couple years ago that after the surveillance cameras were installed at an intersection in district 11 that the murder rate went down and same with violent

crime. so what is the life worth to you people? i'm hearing caller after caller say our privacy is worth everything. that safety can't come at the expense of someone's privacy. really? even the possibility that somebody might not get murdered because the surveillance cameras are up? it's ridiculous what i'm hearing. i'm hearing a lot of supporters and a lot of anti-people oppose this. great. i'm glad you got organized here. i strongly support this legislation and urge you to pass it. >> thank you. >> we have a new caller. >> public speaker: hello. >> hi, please proceed. >> hold on for a second as i

identify the chinese dialect. are you speaking chinese? hello? >> public speaker: hi. >> before the cantonese member proceed, i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> please proceed. >> [speaking cantonese] >>

>> public speaker: hello, members of the rules committee, my name is cindy # wu. i would like to

report that in 2020 there was many crimes in san francisco and all the jewelry stores and seafood and we noticed there is a lot of home break-ins. and there are many asian victims. and there are many asians and car break-ins that is very dangerous, and that's why i'm calling on the san francisco department to access the live video footage of private security cameras because i really think it will help to decrease and also deter crime.

so that's why i would say yes on this legislation. thank you. >> public speaker: hi. my name is kelly. i think the people underestimate how much police will be watching these cameras. it's unfortunate that they don't spend a lot of time fighting crime, but it's just the reality. so giving them access to live cameras isn't going to deter crime. there is already cameras out. the times that it does deter crime is an actual visible camera. but giving people access to private security cameras that aren't really visible and isn't going

to deter any crime from happening. it's a gross very obvious egregious deterrent to this amendment. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: what i want to say is that this is an important item and to give one minute is doing injustice. but if that's the way you board of supervisors want to operate, shame on you. that's all i got to say. thank you very much.

>> next caller, please. public speaker: hi i'm very glad that you are reviewing this amendment and thank you to the chronicle editorial that speaks to this specific amendment to curtail surveillance in our community and the police department have a track record of surveillance by the department and it's not hard to picture how communities of color will be disproportionately impacted by increased surveillance. you need significant amendments to this policy because currently the sf p.d. # draft gives police more power to this surveillance.

in the amendment to limit the police correct footage -- >> your time is up. >> and also amended to protect. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hello, caller, you can speak at this time. >> public speaker: hello? >> please proceed. >> caller, you can proceed. >> i don't think they are aware that we are on the line. maybe we'll come back to them.

>> hello? >> please proceed. public speaker: hello? >> interpreter: let me identify the chinese dialect before i proceed. >> before the cantonese person speaks, i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> >> interpreter: sorry about that. i already delivered my testimony before. i pressed the wrong button. sorry.

>> >> okay. >> good. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, thank you. in my opinion organized crime in chinatown or em brazen home invasions and crimes are written down and never followed up and why are they paid businesses to watch in union square to match the stores and only to see car break-ins and ignore it. police cannot watch all cameras at once and react instantly. we should not allow real time access to private cameras unless there is

a warrant given by a private resident. >> thank you. i believe our caller will be the last caller. >> public speaker: i just wanted to say that i oppose this measure because this circumstance events the rights given to people to have more in place before security footage is pulled and it is a violation of our rights to have privacy. so please vote no. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: thank you. i would like to agree with the previous person that these cameras will create a catch 22 where the police don't need evidence to begin arresting someone on the street aside from

many unofficial laws that they don't often adhere to anyway and will lead to more obstruction to the policing in the communities. i come across these people every week. the drug dealers are not scary. who cares about them. take care of your safety. district 5. >> >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: i agree with so many of the speakers today. how come the police don't have any translators. what's up with that. they have a large

percentage of the budget and they can't provide someone available. maybe unlimited accesses to cameras and no amendment to this will make this okay. the mayor continues to over step boundaries and making choices in our communities and again this is taking money from the community and housing from our city. if these needs were met, none of this would be happening. >> thank you. i believe that was our last caller. mr. atkinson, can you confirm that? >>clerk: mr. chair, there are no

no other callers in the queue. i apologize, we have one last person. public speaker: hi, i'm carrie from san francisco and i'm in opposition to this policy. this will increase the police surveillance powers and sfpd private cameras. the policy is a threat to our fundamental rights to lead to abuse and discrimination. we care about justice and activist, we must do everything we can to protect privacy protection and not more surveillance. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi my name is # arianna. a resident and strongly opposed to this. i do not agree

with this -- [inaudible] >> the footage -- i think this is a severe over reach, and i strongly urge you to oppose this and vote no. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is raymond and i support the legislation. security cameras are important for our safety. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is lloyd silverstein of the merchants association. i have not had time to read this legislation, but we have tried very hard to get a security

camera system into hayes valley to make our neighborhood more safe. we have been told that these cameras would not be monitored and based on that, we have been able to sell this program to our community. >> this will not change that. >> i'm sorry? >> this will not change that. >> okay. all right. well then, that's the only comment i have. i haven't had a chance to read the legislation. i just wanted to make sure as we have been trying to get this program in. when we at a you can to sf, there is talks that this is going to be monitored. if you say it's not going to change that, i will retract my comment. >> thank you, next caller, please. public speaker: hello supervisors, my name is hope williams, a district 9 resident, a black activist and i was

brought against sfpd and this would increase the surveillance powers and this is unprecedented in u.s. history. this proposal is also deeply unpopular and a recent citywide poll, this possess sfpd possess this with the 22 voters nas -- in giving sfpd the right to monitor businesses and people's homes. please vote no to this glaring

civil rights issue. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, i'm a san francisco native in district 8 and oppose this policy and will unfairly target black and brown communities that are already at a high rate of police brutality and violence. please vote no. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is nina. i wanted to support this legislation. san francisco has been a sky rocket of over 500 anti-asian hate crime and i hear they are saying there is not much of a safety issue and i can tell you i have been a victim of crime and this has increased in the last year. when you are in the public space, you need to

remember you are in a public space. so anything that helps you to ensure another person that is not getting attacked and die, i think it's necessary at this moment and this is not a legislation that will go on forever. let's see if we can save a person. so, there is a lot of amendments that will assure our privacy. so please consider this and i strongly support this. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> that was the last caller. all right public comment on this item is closed for today. >> believe it or not, i really appreciate all of that public comment for and against because that's precisely what administrative code 19b was designed to do over things that are really very important which is to do them transparently and in public. before 19b, we would have never had this conversation

because there was no mechanism for these kinds of hearings and policies. so it is doing at least in part what it was designed to do. i did not realize going into this meeting that the city attorney would deem these amendments substantive, but it is what it is. what i would like to do, colleagues, is to adopt the a for discussed amendments establishing the discussion date more robust for additional requirements and the host of other changes in the policy that would be made by the ordinance and then continue the item as amended to our first meeting after the summer recess which believe it or not is not going to be until monday september 12th. if there are no objections, mr. young, on the motion to amend a >> roll call, please. >> yes, before we amend the

motion, we had one more person jump in for public comment. would you like to hear from them? >> yes, but it will only be this one person because we have one more item and i sit on the rules committee which convenes in six minutes, i mean land use committee. >> public commenter, please come forward, please. public speaker: hello? >> yes, please proceed. >> public speaker: hi, yeah, i'm calling to also speak out against this measure. the mayor wants to give free reigns to the police to master surveillance people and this is not towards public safety. this is not only false but harmful and people will not be safe update this mass surveillance and they are using this to discriminate and

against races or classes anden cage people who are poor. i might ask that the use of this for surveillance systems and remind you of george floyd. we don't need anymore cameras and anymore police. if you want real community safet -- >> this is the end of public comment. >> we have a motion and second >> >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> next item, please. >> the motion is continued as amended. >> item no. 7.

7. 220748 [hearing - initiative ordinance - campaign and governmental conduct code - behested payments] sponsor: mayor hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the november 8, 2022, election, entitled "ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to modify the rules concerning behested payment solicitations, by 1) exempting >> i saw someone from the mayor's office here but i don't see him anymore. >> he is online with us. >> mr. henkel? >> good afternoon supervisors and gentlemen, i understand our time is limited, but i am here to take any questions that the supervisors may have about the ballot measure before you? >> i have no questions. i know too much about your measure, my measure, the measure of the board of supervisors unanimously passed last year in our mutual endeavors to attempt to find a

middle ground which i don't want to put words in team mayor's mouth seem to be going well but we will find out in the next 24-48 hours as we join the new ethics commission at 9:30 and hopefully despite their recommendation to kick the can down the road which i find mystifying, we will have an actual action taken by the ethics commission in support of one or the other or a compromised mutually agreed to version or whatever the ethics commission chooses to do, and then hopefully on or before august the fifth, the mayor will withdraw from the ballot, but that's a lot of ifs. we'll see

what happens. members, we have discharged our duty to hear this before law. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this. >> there is no public comment at this time. >>

>> roll call, please. >> [roll call] >> the motion passes. >> thank you, mr. young. >> and for those of you who are in the chambers, two things to know if you are here for the land use committee, one, is it takes the clerk's office a little while to change people's computers, and two, not at my request, the chair of the land use committee has taken pity on this supervisor and will allow me to eat lunch. so, the land use committee will convene at 2:00 p.m. >> >> this meeting is adjourned. >> >>