opening and a wonderful learning >> good morning and welcome to the first rules committee after our summer recess. today, monday september, 12, 2022 i'm the chair aaron peskin joined by supervisor connie

chan. the clerk is victor young. >> board are convening hybrid meetings public comment providing remote access and public comment via phone. the board recognizes the access is essential and taking public comment first will be taken at each item. those in person will be allowed to speak tifrt and then we will take those who are waiting on the phone line. for those watching channel 26, 28, 78 or 99, and sfgovtv the public comment number is streaming across the stream it is 415-554-0001. the id is access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. >> when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but muted in upon listening mode only. which your item come up and

public comment is called those in person lineup to peek and those on the phone line should dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line if you are on the phone, please, remember to turn down your television and all listening devices. as indicated, we'll take public comment those in person first and then go to public comment phone line. alternateively you may submit comment in writing by e mailing them to the rules clerk at victor. young @sfgov.org tell be forwarded to supervisors and included in the file. you may send your written communication by u.s. postal service to office and citial. 1 dr. carlton b. goodlet place. i like to note that arrangements made today for chinese interception for item 7 on the

agenda. and like to defer to provide the announcements in chinese. hi. thank you. hi. supervisor. >> this is our translator. >> got it. >> can i start now. yes. okay. so hi board of supervisors i'm tammy long a chinese translator for today assignment now i can translate the script that victor just announced in english i will translate it to chinese. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> [translating in chinese]

[translating instructions in chinese] [translating remote

public comment in chinese]

>> thank you. >> thank you. mr. clerk could you read the first item? >> yes. item 1, a motion approving rejecting the temporarier's nomation of david martin term ending june 16 of 26 to treasury over night committee. >> thank you, mr. young.

colleague this is is just what was read. a nomination of treasurer to the vacant seat, number 3. which is a chancellor of the community college district or designate me and we have daveit martin, the new chancellor of community college district for this seat. is there anybody here from the treasurer's office withhold like to present or is mr. martin here? >> mr. martin if you are on with us unmute yourself.

mr. young is mr. martin logged in? >> i don't see him but he i believe he did indicate he would attend but i don't see him logged in. why don't we come back to this item when he presents himself. read the next item? >> yes. item 2, hearing to consider appointing a member term ending july 1 of 24 to children, youth and family's oversight committee. we have one seat and 2 applicants. i believe that jennifer solerno was placed on the agenda she is no longer interested in applying. she is the previous seat holder but no longer interested in reapplying >> ms. sat solerno has with

drawn. we have the second applicant andre torrey, is he present? he is with us on microsoft teams. >> good morning. the floor is yours we are in receipt of your application. and looks like you work for the city and county of san francisco and i will turn it over to you to present. >> good morning. theorying. andretory we sf planning. very much interested in participating on this committee. i am qualified upon given my bam ground and dcyf mission and offerings. a bit about my background. 5 years of experience in youth development. 3 here in after school programming with san francisco unified school district and nonprofits. 9 years of public service.

3 different agencies here in the city. all working on equity initiatives. and then lastly growing up here in san francisco i benefited from various programs and offering similar to dcyf and this committee works on and have a desire to continue to support improving access and quality service for children, youth approximate families in the city. i'm here for questions if you have them. >> thank you, thank you for having me. >> very much appreciated and thank you to ms. solerno for making our job easy. are there member who is would like to testify on this item number 2? going once. public comment is closed. and colleagues. if there is no objection, i will make a motion to forward the one

remaining applicant andre torrey, to the board with a positive recommendation for seat no. 11. on that motion mr. young a roll call, please. >> yes. on that motion, supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passed without objection. >> is mr. martin available? item number one. i don't hear biwill working with our office to try to track mr. martin down >> okay. move on to item 3, then >> item 3 is ordinance the administrative code county

veteran service officer under disability and aging service rart than administrative service. gift director of the authority to nominate the officerment update annual report to the board of supervisors and the mayor and provide administrative support to veteran affair's commission. >> thank you. colleagues. my apologies. if we can go to item 2 keep failed to take public comment. i took and i closed it. >> i don't believe i made announcements i will make a motion to reas i understand the vote on item 2 you can make your announce ams but i called for comment and nobody commented and then i closed public comment. but out of caution and indeference to our clerk i make a motion to rescind the vote on item 2 we will take without

objection and go ahead. mr. young. >> yes. members who wish to speak on item number 2 and joining us in person lineup at this time if they want to make public comment. for those listening remote call 415-554-0001 enter access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. once connected you need to press star 3 to enter the line for those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted that is time to begin comment. is well anyone who would like to comment for item 2? there does not appear to be anybody. nobody on the public comment line for public comment on this item. >> public comment on item 2 is closed a second time and i will make a motion of the board mr. andre torrey for seat number 11. on that motion. a roll call. >> yes, on that motion supervisor chan.

>> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> motion passes. >> okay we called item 3, which is legislation authored by supervisor safai we have bill barnes. mr. barns the floor is yours. >> thank you. members of rules bill barns on behalf of supervisor safai. the county veteran officer is created by state law counties may have one and san francisco in 1993 create third degree position. over the last 20 years there has been reorganization of government and so previous the position was contained within the department of administrative services, today the services are provided through the human services agency and d. ageing

and adult service. we have a clean up ordinance that clarify who is is responsible for what. in addition to that, the veteran affairs commission created by the board had we never specified the add administrator support, city addvator get in agreement with hsa they will provide staff for putting out agendas. cindy from the department is here if people have questions in the interest of time i will ask the committee support for this ordinance. >> thank you, mr. barns, i have 2 questions for you. >> mostly it seems like the powers and duties that were in the old code 56108 and moved 8.8-3 are the same of but i note

there is a new subsection, d. which is adding to the power and duties the ability to purchase or lease real property. >> there has been for a long time a discussion around the officer being in the war memorial building for the purpose of providing those service. as members know, the war memorial board would have to agree to that. but in addition to in order to facilitate that conversation this would allow the veteran officer with the director of property to enter in a lease with the war memorial. this is something that has been in the works for some time. both party vs to agree in order for that to occur. >> words, to purchase, were the ones that. ed out at me. >> that was language that was drafted bite city attorney i don't believe there is a plan to purchase property the proposal

was discussed as the leasing spafts war memorial. that question is linked to my next, which is that the appropriation's language that exists in 5.108 does not seemed to have been recreate in the section twenty, why not? upon basically the director of administrative service compensate the officer to fund all personnel this is the budget process. the language was cleaned up a bit in section 20.8-2 provide assistance that are in to carry out of the officer's duties. department, part of the regular budget submission, include funding for the staff. there is more than one staff member and other costs. so the provision is dubicative but intent is to make sure facilities and services are

provide that is page 3 line 7. >> i see that. does that language also in its broad nature encompass the language at 20.8-3 subd and obi have the need. we would not have afternoon objection if the city attorney believes the other language is sufficient. >> deputy city attorney. be could highlight what you think it duplicative? >> no. i only think that one is not necessary. insofar as the appropriations language that existed prior. or exist today that we are about to strike. and mr. barns contendses that they would be dealt with in the normal course of the appropriation's cycle and that

language is cover in the section 20.8-2. that language seems to speak broadly to the use of facilities, which i think could lead to the striking of the language on page 4 at lines 3 and 4 the subsection i was concerned about with regard to purchase or lease. >> the listening in section 20.8-2 is typical language we draft had there is an agency responsible for the administration and support of a body as here. to make sure they are given an office. i think it is somewhat different from the authorization to purchase or lease. it is a policy choice but they achieve different purposes. >> i would be inclined to delete

line 4 on page 4 the 3 words, to purchase or based on the reality, which is they are seek to lease property at the war memorial. which is an appropriate place for them to be. that would be acceptable to us. that? >> all right. any questions from committee members do i don't want to hear from das? if not -- or if so you are welcome to jump on in. if nots we'll open up to public comment. >> thank you. cindy cover man deputy director of das. i thank you this is something we truly worked with supervisor to bring b. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. are there members of the public who would like to testify on

this item number 3? members who wish to speak in person lineup at this time. and lineup by the window. for those remote, call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. once connected you need to press star 3 to enter the line. for those in the queue, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted that is your key to begin comments. i don't see anybody in the room lining up. we have 2 callers on the line for public comment. >> first speaker, please. >> can you hear me now. >> please proceed. david pillpel. good morning i agree with the occurrence of supervisor peskin related to page 4 linesly and 4.

and a minimum it would be good to amend and i am not sure i see a need for those 2 lines i might strike them entirely and that would leave the power to purchase or lease real property through the director of property. vested with the director of the department of disability and aging services the head of the unit that the county veteran services serve officer would report to. but either way i think that is fine. i support the reorganization and reassignment of the [inaudible] to [inaudible] in this way and [inaudible] the work that bill barnes, dave reese and others may have made in this regard. thank you for listening.

>> next speaker, please. >> can we have our next speaker, please. >> there used to be a time when the presidio of san francisco was active the veterans had facilities at the presidio and relied on the facilities there at the presidio. in this case we are [inaudible] the too many things. the veterans should be begin an opportunity to purchase an office here in san francisco. we must remember chronologically the history of this san francisco. so the war memorial may not want

the certain point to lease a space. we should have language that to help the veterans. in recent years going back 15 years the veterans have been treated with distain. when it come to permits, they may sell stuff on market street. when it come to housing. we have too many veterans on our street. and [inaudible] when somebody does not take care of the veterans and legislation or some part of the language come before the board of supervisors. the vet reasons are fine with

the vast facilities because they laid their lives for us. unlike many of you supervisors. >> are there other members who would like to testify on this item >> that completes the list of public commenters. >> public comment is closed. final words from you issue mr. barnes. if not, i will make a motion to strike the 3 wordos page 4 line 4, 2 purchase read, may seek. i'm sorry. just remove 2 words purchase or, will read may seek to lease real property. on that motion a roll call, please. on the motion to amend. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin.

>> aye. >> the motion pass. a motion to send this as amended to the board with a positive recommendation on that motion a roll call. >> on the motion supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> motion passed without objection. >>s and welcome president walton. mr. clerk could you read the next item? >> item 4, ordinance amending the administrative code to reestablish workforce alignment gift department committee and workforce development program and procedures planning and implementation of workforce development programs. >> mr. walton. supervisor walton. >> thank you, chair peskin and colleagues on the committee.

you know on tuesday, july 26 i introduced an ordinance amending the code to reestablish the committee on city workforce ash linement to give responsibility for planning and coordinating the city's workforce development programs and to make sure other changes governing the plan and implementation of workforce development promise. it is a major mile stone for the workforce development communities. build skills of the workforce in san francisco. my job is and has been to bring people together for the best out come for our city and the communities. must a liven city departments, labor, workforce provide and the workforce on policies around best practices and strategies to ensure that everyone in san francisco is employable and ready to climb the lad and build

strong careers. i want to thank everyone with building the committee in reestablishes the wroshg and the process. my aid percy birch, also the team at oewd. director josh arsay. jim hahn the workforce alignment manager. and city attorneys. community played a major role push to make sure this alignment commit eye was reestablished hold us accountable and work of labor getting you to this pointively know well say.ation and i do have amendments i would like the committee to consider after their presentation. all right. . mr. arsay. >> chair peskin. committee members and president walton. director of workforce development at office of

economic and workforce development. a pleasure to be here with you. a lot of work i know to get to this point and so we got brief slides as president walton shared and joined here by workforce arc line. manager gent hand. president walt sxen our director workforce director jack houston and director lisa pagone. thank you, gent for sharing the slide this is is a brief presentation for the committee. about the next slide gives an over view of the committee on city workforce alignment. it is the protect of 2014 ordinance offered by david chu and reestablished by chair walton it is best out lined the findings and recommendations of

the mayor and board supervisor economic recovery task force report quoted there at the top. the alignment committee coordinate workforce development service across city departments and we call out 2 important goals to increase effectiveness in line with hapresident walten described. also to establish a shared approach that allows you to measure system success. an important part is transparency and accountability the recommendation from october 2020 is noting that the committee had sun sets under the 2014 ordinance out of june 30 of 2019 the recommendation was to reestablish the commit eye in order to advance our workforce goals and well is elements that speak to some of the initiatives in the city wide focus racial equity the dream keeper initiative authored by mayor and

walton and implemented by colleagues lead by doctor davis of the human right's commission all lead us here today in reauthorizationing and establishing the ordinance. so00 automembers today i want to make it clear, president walten knows and the committee. this committee sunseted june 30 of 2019, we have not stopped meeting we met regularly since as we committed to this committee years ago because of the importance of the work. we engage community stake holders who work in the add vse visary committee. here other partners the largest resources in programs. human right commission are cochairs. members include department, youth and families. department of human resources, department of public health.

san francisco public works. human services agency. puc and per recommendations from this board and budget and analyst audit and partnerships in place to our city our home the department of homelessness and supportive housing. >> one of the main way in which we measure our progress to goals under the 2014 ordinance during the interim period we do this work despite the ordinance sunsetd and the work proposeed continue under the new reauthorization ordinance is built around the workforce service inventory. anning annual process our team lead by jen hands a force of one but will be announcing workforce assignment specialists. 24 departments this is something important. 24 departments in fiscal 2021

invested or did invest during that year. resource in workforce development programs. 143 million dollars invested. we line out the investments that are made in terms of services, wages, administrative cost in funding source this is is important going back to the genesis of workforce alignment now and account for the dollars and impacts. you see the graph of spending this we share. the next slide, the other finding that is important and take away from this survey is to look at the programs. so for the 24 departments the 143 million dollars in 2021, the programs were 262 in numbers. 262 different programs. 299 different contract it is making up that programs.

143 different service providers what we endeavour to do is coordinate amongst the differents staff at different departments to determine outer come of the resources and report them out. one of the things we will talk about here i'm halfway through. supervisors, is 2 charges from our work prior to the solution or sunsetting of the body and the work continued is to really try the best we can to determine upon how many san franciscos are serves. number 30, 125 is unique clients by department. departments doing their work to identify individual participates the challenge we face in one of the goals we discussed here would be to create a way to reduplicate and know when someone starts with a program and guess to a program fundsed arlington department and participate in a final program with the 3 third department, we want to make sure today that

individual shows up as 3 individuals when we know it is one. this is one of the challenges the things that is important around reauthorizationing the ordinance. a couple slide and is will turn it over to questions the committee may have. so we are able to get demographics. ways we measure our racial equity competence gender and goals and objectives with respect to making sure no one is left behind as we rebuild post pandemic. one thing is these are duplicated data points we are really charging the colleagues in the different departments and ourselves to create a system to reduplicate that dast a. lastly. if we go to the next slide. the primary goals we discussed in our most recent meeting with the committee and based on reports and discussed with president walton would be to

irrelevant focus on reduplicating the client data to have information about individuals. today we are with our office of workforce and human services agency, we are able to know ify woor working with the same individual or if they are different we have shared systems. that is something we want to do city wide. our office mostly because we have an oversight body, workforce investment san front a required oversight body that exist in the 45 areas around the state. goes beyond with respect to the country we provide very specific data like this in the dash boarded from our office that is data respect to the city build academy where we present inrollments. training and placement rates, wages, race, gender, age. demographics for that program and program in our it is a goal we shared and love to report

this out for all 262 programs in the different departments. so, in proposing the reauthorization, are authored by president walton, there is reference to the new are bodies that come in in existence in different plans and reports since the original 2014 ordinance there is a proposal from president walton we support to establish a definition of the term workforce development to be applied across city departments and proposal to include additional departments in the third bullet point there mainly the d. adult probation to join us. there is an innovative and responsive to community and labor calls for public participation in this body. 3 appointments 3 by the mayor and 3 by the board of supervisors for the public representatives with 2 representing service providers and one representing the labor

organization. and that suck rised below. 4 public representatives of nonprofit service provide and 2 from labor. and vehicle for the last slide i promise you cleanings committee members the proposed technical amendments that president walton eluded to was there are 4 but there are really 3. 2 are related an out dated plan that no long in existence that we missed on the first ireration we would propose to strike through. extend the dead line for the first plan called for from march 24 give us 4 months post the expected enactment.

with that i turn it over back to you chair peskin for questions you may have >> thank you, president walton. members any questions. thank you. i don't have a question i wanted state the specifics of the amendments that i'm asking someone to move forward on the committee. >> i have those right here and please. proceed. >> perfect. thank you, pageon proposal to remove section 30.1c, a plan that no longer exists. page 7, principle to change section 30.5f1 to read, by match 15th, 2024 rather than march 15 of 23. to give the necessary time to

prepare the workforce development plan. page 7. remove reference in 30.5f1 to the same nonexisting economic plan we proposed to remove referenceed in the first proposed change. and would remove the word, strategy plan for economic development. on page 7. the update to the city wide workforce frommanual to bianual to allow to evaluate system level change that need time to successfully implement by changing by march 15 of 2 and every year thereafter to march 15 of 25 and every 2 years thereafter. >> thank you. president walton. any responses to the memorandum from the clerk with regard to a member of potential suggestions

with regard to attendance requirements. meeting of the body. and for administrative efficiency adding seat numbers to help mr. young and the clerk's office administer this measure. >> i support making sure that the clerk's life is easier. and those changes don't do anything to change when we want to achieve with this commit each >> okay. then, that becomes a function of language. ms. pierson, if we were to follow the suggestions of the clerk of the board as it relates to, there are a number of these. the one that is most important from an implementation administrative standpoint is arc signing seat numbers.

>> we can make any of those changes for introduction when this come to the full board they will not be substantive. i noed note one is to add a sunset date. i think our office advised that does not make sense the expectation this will last for more than 3 years. if you want to let me know which of the recommendations you want to accept we can prepare. >> i think the instent as to that one to wave rule 2.221 of rules of order. i think the other once seat numbers and nonattendance results in resignation. automatic resignation. and then -- mr. arsay how afternoon does this body meet. we met quarterly the prior iteration of the ordinance and had discussed that same option going forward. >> add that suggestion and what

about oewd the administrating departmentful you good with that? >> all right. discuss with our department's office about that and yes. >> great we can add those. open item 4 to public comment. supervisor, chan, my bad. gi want to thank president walton for leadership on this. i do agree it is critical. i think that for this program to continue, we work online and in our city is critical. we see there was a great results with fire department and our fire department and having the program in collaboration with oewd has been very fruitful and productive and developing a workforce pipeline for yourth in the city. and young people in the city. and that is great for the city as well in terms of having a pipeline for workers that coming

in and especially during the time we are under staffed. i want to just, it is not my intention to amend it in any way. to articulate my thoughts for the mayoral appointments and the board of supervisor appointments working with economic and workforce development to think about getting involved with our educators like the city college of san francisco. san francisco state and unified school district and how to create the per inship with our educators and great to hear that laborville a seat with this body so i appreciate all the work that everyone has been doing and continue to do in the next few years. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisor chan. if there are no further comments or questions from members or president walton. mr. young, open up public comment. >> yes. member who is wish to speak and

joining in person lineup to speak at this time. for those online call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. once connected you mead to press star 3 to enter the speaker line for those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted then begin your comment. i don't see anybody in line to speak in the room at this time. we have one person in line to speak on our pc line. >> can we have the first caller? great. daved again. i appreciate the presentation i'm not entirely clear on the difference between the local workforce investment board and the alignment committee. if i think i understands it the workforce victim of san francisco covers private and

public workforce including education, training, labor and employer needs and separately the alignment committee is focussed on city department workforce including city build and similar programs i may be confused. i note amongst the 10 departments on the alignment committee the m ta and rec and park are not included perhaps in the future there could be permanent seats on the committee for agencies like hsa and the human right's commission and dhr and perhaps rotating seats for the big 6 departments so there is continuing representation and changes unless some of the departments that don't have formal seats will be invited to

participate since they would have interests and issues with regard to public workforce develop:i appreciate the consideration of the clerk's memo recommendations. and i'm sure i can follow up with my old friend josh if i have other comments or questions here thanks for the work on this. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we don't have additional callers on the line for public comment. i will make a motion to take the described amendments propoeds on pages 1 and 7 on that motion a roll call, please. >> are you including the clerk of the boards? >> no. those will be made at the floor at the full board next tuesday. >> thank you. >> supervisor chan.

>> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion pass the without objection. >> >> then why don't we sends the item as amended with recommendation subject to further amendment as discussed with deputy city attorney pierson. which will occur on the 20, whatever that is. 22nd or 21st or 23rd. the tuesday after tomorrow. >> that would be september 20. why that was a zero. >> september 20. >> on that motion roll call. >> on that motion supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin.

>> aye. >> motion passes without objection. any sign of mr. martin on item one. >> we have to the seen a log in yet we did call his office and i have sent an e mail i got indication he would join remote but not seen him log in yet y. go to item 5. >> item 5 is ordinance campaign and governmental conduct code to modify the rules concerning behested payments stationed by exempting under certain types of city programs to solicit requests and charitiable donations through competitive procedure's contract. providing that the receipt of nondiscretionary license permits under entitlements for use does not make a person of any interested party providing attempt to influence an action did not make a person an

interested party exempting solicitation made in connection with city and acquisition of real property and other clarifying changes. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues i'm pleaseed report it appear we have peace in our time. on august the 12th, i appeared for the seconded time in front of ethic's commission that by a majority vote as required pursuant to prop e, passed by voter in june; recommended amendmented this board of supervisors. and those amendments did not get in the file until they were signed as to form. on monday august the 15th. which is slightly less than the 30-days that prop e requires that they be available to the public. they have indeed been a part of

this file and publicly available in that memorandum that i sent and are a part of this file. they have been there for almost 30 days. what i would like to do today, if the city attorney will indulge me, is to adopt the august 15th version and continue this item one week until next monday and then to stay within the time frames we originally attempting to stay with; adhere to, sends it as a committee report for the 20th. mr. pierson you are looking at me funny about that. >> deputy city attorney, i would recommend against that approach just because the language of prospect e says the board shall not consider for 30-days to act on the amendments even with inknow tent to continue would not be. >> we will not act i will

continue it for a week at which time i would like to act and send it as a committee report for the 20th to remain on schedule. is that acceptable to council? >> that is. i still need to review them to make sure they are not substantive. but i will do that and, >> okay. >> we will i think -- god forbid i play lawyer on tv i don't think they are you might differ. why don't we open item 5 up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this long running intrigue called behested payment >> member who is wish to speak and join nothing person line up to speak. for those row mote call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##

>>mented appreciate you taking public comment on this and working throughor occurrence. in collaboration with members of the philanthropic community that do work on behalf of folk this is need it most. close collaboration with the city and urge to you pass the compromised language. we feel it needs our needs and colleagues needs to work and partnership addressing the real ethical concerns that brought this forth in the first place. >> thank you. >> entering this 2-1/2 years somebody is going to jail.

>> all right. >> is there anybody else in the room for public comment. none in the room we have 4 on the line for public comment. >> first speaker, please. >> good morning. this is the san francisco human services network we support the reform of san francisco ethic's laws to increase transparency and protect against corruption the behested legislation lead to unintended consequences and have deep concerns about the impact on the city's ability to raise charity donations for community needs. we support the proposed amendment put forth by mayor, ethices and supervisor peskin they will mitigate the provisions that caused the greatest partnership to the city's ability to funds vital programs. exceptions allow ethic's regulators to focus on those

situation hallucinogens have a risk of corruption. facilitating and claire fighting the fundraising rules that support health and human service prospects. narrow the provisions defining teams to influence gentleman action will have a prohibition applicable to lobbyists and contractors who would have an obvious economic benefit that holds the greater risk possible corruption. so limit on the amount of behested payments will facilitate grass-roots fundraising unlike to create a risk corruption while retaining the bribery laws that cover situation where is pay to play is involved the behested law creates significant challenge for nonprofits when serve on boards and commissions desire and ability to serve the city in those capacities. exceptions will mitigate those

barriers. we thank the board for your thoughtful review of the proposed legislation and urge to you approve it as soon as possible to allow fundraising efforts to move forward. why thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm allison a director with philanthrophy partner in san francisco. partner with individuals and families and direct funding toward the important issues and organizations in make a difference for reds debts, children and families. i'm adding my strong support on behalf of our firm for the proposed amendments and hope the committee and board will approve it. philanthrophy plays an important

role in san francisco. it is prove true of public/private partnerships. we understand the need for ethices and but important we don't stifle philanthrophy. we freernt the efforts to clarify the rules that supervisor peskin and the mayor distinguished. will allow us and people we work with to have partnerships with city and nonprofits in this time of deep challenges for san francisco coming out of the pandemic, it is a time to do all we can to encourage and inspire funding solutions and partnerships and feel this compromised legislation will allow for that. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next caller, please. david again. i agree with debbie's comments i think that this needs more

analysis and explanation if passed. i think tell need city attorney and ethic's commission advice and guidance. including an amendment to the good government guide to explain and give examples. it may also need new controller and oca controls and procedures. i would encourage the board of supervisors to sends out a new fyi referral to all city departments not just ethics and the department of elections as is in the file. it was dated june 18th this . has city wide impact on all departments and how contracts and grants are handled and -- i think everyone -- should have the ability to weigh in on the amendments that are proposed and the substance and sure that this

is done right and does not have the unintend consequences that it could and may and might. thanks for listening. >> thank you. >> can we have our next caller? >> supervisors, i spoke at the ethic's commission. and i strategyly feel that the language in prop e is very clear. and at this commission iy stated with supervisor who was present day is muddying it is waters. i want to bring to your attention that the general manager of the san francisco public utility's commission provided one supervisor with talking points.

i don't know why we are so interested in this type of behested model with a very, very convoluted language. i really cannot understand -- you think, even that we participate in public combhenlt. the supervisors [inaudible] and now you have 5 or 6 supervisos who are allowing the one supervisor in order to pass some behested language -- that is detriment to transparency. and accountability. thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good morning.

supervisors i'm lola cot a retired city employee and in an anticorruption status's group i'm speaking of one of 70 p.s. of san francisco voter who is supported prospect e and who's vote, i believe, meant we want the regulations on the entertainment to be fair and effective. i beg you allow me and other anticorruption advocate opportunity for open discussion and disclosure on the amendments. and the changes not process of legislative over ride. which is part of prop e. at the last ethic's commission discussion, i think the timing of the release of the materials.

and -- the absence of something as good on workforce development in explanations, it did not give citizens a chance to full information or know the reasons for the proposed changes or what the unintended consequence were. well were parties not there in the recommend to explain why the changes were necessary. so, i strongly request you are already take thanksgiving over for a week and for a bit more time. that you refer this item become to the ethic's commission. so that we voters have a fair chance to understand what is happening and weighing in -- voters don't want to weaken what we just voted establish. so -- please, create an

opportunity to share. >> on the reason being behind the -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. thank you to chair peskin, mandelman and chan for the opportunity to chair comments today. i'm jen the program director the the peter ha funds in san francisco that is work to support their city's early childhood ecosystems for 30 years. the fund supports the amendments and appreciates the leadership by the mayor's office and the board of supervisors to amend the campaign and gentlemanal conduct code to modify the rules concerning behested payments. and eagerly anticipate the passage. look forward to working with the city and the field of early care and education to ensurety young

children and families have access to high quality early education service. thank you for your support of the >> good morning. this is charles. president of the coalition of san francisco neighborhoods for all of san francisco neighborhoods. we endorse prop e and even [inaudible] and we are pleased when it passed. my interest in the behested payments guess to the grand jury of 2013 had larry bush commit were on that jury dealing with gentleman corruption and all i say is it is about time, get on with it. i sympathize with the supervisor peskin, what's and this -- 2-1/2 year thing about purke the block

up the hill. and get this reform accomplished. thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> our last caller dropped off we have no callers on the line. >> thank you for that public comment. we will hear this again a week from today. on the motion to continue this item one week a roll call. >> yes. on the motion to continue... supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> that motion passes out objection. >> mr. martin is with us now.

>> excellent return to item one chancellor martin. good morning t is still morning the floor is yours. i see that the treasurer jose cisneros comnayed you for treasure overite. you are not only qualified by virtue of being the chancellor you are a cpa. >> good morning supervisor are peskin thank you for the opportunity to address. i'm excited be considered for this appointment. and look forward to serving the treasury oversight commit eye as a representative for city college of san francisco i will be happy to answer questions. >> thank you. >> refrain from asking you how prop o was draft in the a way tell cost the city of san francisco millions of dollars every year and i will leave that alone. are there questions for the

chancellor of city college? seeing none, is there public comment? >> are there members who wish to speak yoining in person lineup at this time. >> for those listening remote, call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. you node to press story 3 to enter the speaker line. for those in the queue wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted that is time to begin comment i don't see anybody in the room, there is one caller in the line. >> >> dave ird againful i have no specific thoughts on this nominee i refreshed my computer and looks like granicus crashed

again. >> are there members who would like to testify on this item and we will make whatever technical adjustments we need to make. if they are correct. and it is not just your computer. seeing no other public comment on this item. public comment is closed. and before i make an amendment to the subject motion. as far as my staff is watching and the treasurer's office is watching, i note that seat number 5 has expired a couple months ago. if the treasurer can make a nomination to that seat. this committee will process haso, calvin if you are watching call amanda and get that nomination. and with that, i will make a

motion to amend that line 3 in the long tiling removing the word, rejecting and line 17 remove the word, rejects. >> mr. chairman would you like to add a residency waiver? >> yes. you did say that. wait and i think ann said it was required. >> it is. >> i would like it move addition of a residency waiver. >> okay. on that motion to amend supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. >> and then we'll send the item as amended with recommendation

to the full board. >> on the motion to recommend as amended. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes without objection. like to note we checked our granicus system it is working correctly. >> thank you, i appreciate that. next item, thank you mr. martin for your wellingness to serve. item 6. >> yes. ordinance amending the code to remove the requirement to charge a legacy business registry administrative fee. >> thank you. that is exactly what this ordinance does. merely removes 62a.2 froor subsection d the the silly >> reporter: of a $50 application fee. for something that has been

successful and does not cover much of our administrative time and we have have been appropriating funds to the function at the small business office. rick is here if you have questions but that is what this ordinance that supervisor ronnin and i proposed, does. if there are, anything you want to add or subtract? sing praises tell us how incredible this program has been. >> thank you very much. >> good morning chair peskin. legacy business program manager with office of small business in economic and workforce development. i know you have a full agenda i will be brief. the small business support this is item. we want to reduce barriers for businesses applying for legacy

business registry. $ fee did sd not generate significant ref mule and work with tracking the fee. so over all the office of small business stroif to reduce fees when possible and appreciate your support today. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> supervisor mandelman. great idea. thank you i like to be added as a cosponsor. >> well. let the record show supervisor mandelman is now a cosponsor. is there any public comment on this item? >> yes, members who wish to speak and are in person should lineup. at this time, for those listening remote call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##.

once connected you will need to press story 3 and for those in the queue continue to wait until you are indicated have been unmuted that will be your queue to begin your comments. we have a person on the line for public comment. >> first speaker, please. >> daved again, once again i have no comments on this during the presentation granicus crashed if you could monitor that if necessary you mineed to recess and reboot that system. thank you for listening. i will wait to her i suspect it is your computer, mr. pillpel. >> that completes our commenter on this matter. >> public comment is closed and i will make a motion to send the item with recommendation with supervisor mandelman's

cosponsorship to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> on the motion to recommend supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> >> that motion passes without objection. >> next item. >> item 7, ordinance approving the surveillance technology policy for police department use of noncity entity surveillance cameras and establishing a sunset date a year after the effective date of the ordinance. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues you will recall at our last meeting of the rule's committee on july 25th, the third time that this committee heard this policy pursuant to code 19b. we made amendments that were

deemed to being substantive by deputy city attorney pooebs pierson and hence, today's meeting. let me remind not that you, 2, need reminding. the history of this matter. which is in 2019, i authored and the board passed section 19b of the administrative code. which required every city department of which there are many departments, with any kind of surveillance technology. there are many types of surance technology in many departments. to tell us what technology they had. how they use today. when they shared the data with. who had access in their departments. had the purposes were. and those policies would have to be vetted bite committee on information technology and ultimately approved by this

board of supervisors. we have now done it for many, many departments. truth be told the police department was rather slow in bring us a use policy relative to their technology. this one represents only one of their use technology policies. there are more to come. this was first introduced back in may after a [inaudible] with the mayor and myself where in -- the mayor proposed a weakening of 19b as a ballot measure. i proposed another ballot measure. and ultimately, the 2 of us agreed to with draw our ballot measures. and the police ultimately, chose to adhere to 19b and submit this

policy for our review and consideration of along the way there has been many meetings. there have been revisions to the policy. is it perfect? probably not. is it worth trying? i think so does it attempt to balance what we want to balance, which is civil liberties, rights to privacy, and possible safety? i think it attempts to do that. but this is unique insofar as unlike the other surveillance technologies the amendment that i made and we voted include establishes a hard sunset date. and sets fort the data we want to see after a year's use of this policy. which will guide us as to whether or not we want to renew it at all.

whether or not we would like to amend the policy. and so, that is what i am prosecute posing. i realize it is not without controversy. i have read every word in the letter authored by 2 members ever police commission. i discussd that with vice president of the police commission. i note that this in no way under minds the police commission or the police department or the chief's ability to modify department general orders. they have that right. all be it, i think there have been conflation not only by my esteemed members of the police commission and the san francisco bar association about what this policy addresses and other tools

at law that the department has. the department has the ability and has always had the ability to seek a search warrant. this is in the changed by this policy. that is between god the judge and the department. so, as i was reading the bar association's letter, i say, i think the department's response to the bar association was correct. this does not have implications for the issuance of search warrants, this is about voluntary agreements by third parties over third party surveillance with the department. so, i want to note that for the record. i believe that department of general order 8.10 is out of assistant district attorney with first amendment activities i

said this in one of the fourth hearing on the item.with first i said this in one of the fourth hearing on the item.date with f activities i said this in one of the fourth hearing on the item. i understand the department and commission are doing this that policy controls and set forth in this policy. again, there is a bit of a conflation there. the under pinning of 19b was exactly when we are doing. which is that everybody not just us as elected efficients but the members of the public get to see that the departments have. they get to see what the rules of the game relative to how long they stored the data. who they share it with who has access how it is used, are. then we can hold departments to account relative to adhere to those policies. 91 of that existed before 19 b. i think this is an important

exercise as i said the beginning, is did we get it right. probably not. but it it is worth trying for a year. now the department has suggested to me, that a year is actually not quite right and if you look at what 19b holds, which is we want annual reporting data in order to given the effective date, which if we and he had it is approved and 30 days before it guess in affect. and you want to full year's worth of data; we need to change the one year to 15 months. in order to get that full year's worth of data because 19 b holds they have 60 days to furnish that after a year. that is merely a sensible timing

issue. i want to thank deputy city attorney zackary for making those changes, which i will make a motion to introduce. i did actually talk to the department on friday about some additional language changes, which in mine and his reading were unnecessary and already spoken to in the legislation. i'm not making those amendments today. and be that i will turn it over to you, colleagues for comments or questions that you. >> have a brief presentation. i have not forgot you. i'm starting with my colleagueos this panel and with that, i will turn it over not department and thank you for working with this supervisor in good faith. hearing the changes i asked that

have resulted in i think substantial and significant changes related to one of the things that was the impetus for 19b which was respecting right to privacy in the public realm. and reporting rights to simple liberties. >> thank you very much. i'm [inaudible] i'm the special project manager from chief office of san francisco police department. we will go over a presentation to catch us up. you were off on the recess. i have hard copies to hand out. and our staff member will

advancing the slides. >> again i'm joined by assistant chief lazar will be here to answer questions at the ends of the presentation. so as to sprierdz peskin mentioned 19b requires a public hearing for every policy surveillance technology policy presented. i will refer to that as the [inaudible] for the surveillance policy. we were heard in front of the private easy board. i will call [inaudible] on march 25th and march 31st. they move today forward through [inaudible] the committee and april 7th and 21st. coit moved it'd forward to adopt to the rules committee. we went in front of ruleos july 11 and 18. and a presentation to the police commission on july 20.

and we were heard on july 25th. and now here we are today, september 12 to be heard the [inaudible] move forward to full board. who does this apply to? code 19 b applies to the inventory we have our department has [inaudible] and covers oral and written agreements to use or receive dast from noncity entities or individuals. that covers victims and witness s and businesses impacted by crime. we v don't know how many we receive data from regularly temperature is not defined in 19 b we propose this to cover all of the individuals and businesses in the city where we don't have a financial agreement with them. we have no mou or agreement with them and they are not a city

agency. this covers victims, and businesses. individuals or businesses hosting events where public safety may be impacted. the hard copy you have we have been moved a slide. advance to another labeled 19 bs tp temporary live monitoring. this is how it could look for temporary live monitoring. currently, they don't exist and not required and not standard. the one in front of you does stoordize the requesties. receive information about a plan [muffled] and completes a live monitoring form through a chain of command for captain rank approval. a q2 they go through sergeant, lieutenant and captain before

they can go to the noncity entity if make the request. if the captain does not prove the office can not make the request. if approved the officer may submit a request to the noncity entity. at that time, they submit the request. they are looking for express con70 that noncity entity. we may seek a warrant at that point. entity will provide the access. up to them to provide it and up to them in the way in which they will provide that access. officers again have them sign a form that shows the proof of the consent. take the footage if there is something captured they will go become to the noncity entity if make the request. no recording that is prohibition in stp. no recording they can't record with cell phones, cameras or any

other device. and that footage is in an athive file. aids the investigation may result in arrests or activity. >> attention we have gone over the data retention is i >> reporter: in 19b. manage we consider is write down andic make clear how we plan to retain or share the data. this is a review of how we retain this data it will be included with an investigative 5 temperature is evidence and will be retained as such. any footage for officer involved shooting is kept forever. this footage belongs to the third party it is in the ours. if it is shared or kept for longer or less time that is up to the third party.

>> what are we talking about. this is [inaudible] who san 84 year old american walking in the neighborhood had he was shoved to the grounds and died as a result of injuries. consent for this footage resulted in the arrest of this suspect 2 days after the incident. it was vital in helping us electronic down the suspect hapushed this gentlemen. next slide. roorth case a 70 ye old woman attacked, kick exclude robbed. consent to the video footage allowed us to work with law enforcement to track down the individuals responsible of another noncity entities consented give us footage including bart of the group that

had committed a few other crimes that day. this is when we are talking about. talking about historical footage that captures a crime that is not hours that has no value it is related criminal investigations and activity. next slide, >> we received calls through the rules hearing process. received letters of concern we think opinions are critical to forming public pol. we heard concerns and tried address them. and so i want to highlight mystery more high level concerns we received more than once and how we addressed it in the stp. one concern we hear often is that sfpd will track peaceful activity, as supervisor peskin mentioned. we are required to comply with

department orders and have a general order 810 guidelines for first amendment activities does in the allow you to interrupt or get in the way of first amendment activities. and alsos does put guidelineos electronic surveillance of criminal activity associated with the first amendment activities. under the prohibition, we refer to this dgo to ensure well is compliance. we are not monitoring peaceful activity or tracking peaceful activity we are asking for footage related criminal activity. criminal activity only. if we are going to monitor during the large events for deploy am. the alternative is physically putting cops in the crowds. so another concern is this this is sfpd that there is these impact pd department general

orders. we made sure not to add content of our general orders in the st p if we add content and refer that could actually get in the way imfact the dgo it would turn into an ordinance and the police commission would not be empowered make a change without going through an amendment. we made sure just to refer to the dgo to make sure that it does not impact the content it reminds members they are also beholdant to the dgo's. racial desparity in is a concerning that come up. the sir the impact report 19 b requires the submission of the report and that goes and helps inform the development of the stp. civil learnts impact. racial desparities are considerations had you look at

public policy relate to surveillance. it is impacted by addressed by place am of cameras. they are not our cameras the placement are not up to us. we have not decided the neighborhood the cameras are going to be placed in based on individual placement. another way to address racial disparity make sure well is not misuse of surveillance or track or audit the use we folded this in the stp tuesday. >> another concern pd will have a central location to monitor anyone. we discuss third degree they don't give us legal or technology infrastructure to tap in anyone one system we will not look in ring cameras we are not look nothing your systems. it dependsos content at time of incidentful an example your business is robbed you cal 911

an officer come responding to the call and ask for your footage. it dependses on consent. we don't have one cent roll location we look at one camera if something happen in your home we ask you consent for copy of ring camera. we may seek a warrant to aid in the investigation. stock piled footage that is a concern. stp carves out a prohibition for recording anything we monitor. we will not have the ability to stock pile footage if this guess through. we would if we see a crime happening we go back to the entity and ask for footage relate to that incident. not a stock pile of information or data with this approval. >> pd receive footage via warrant and prohibited from

receiving consent on volunteer footage. does not believe victims or businesses lose right to volunteer their own footage. remind thank you is again their camera system and appeal by camera systems for different reason one important reason to capture criminal activity that impacts them, home and neighborhood or business. and they should be able to volunteer that information to the department so we can investigate. another concern is we need more time to a social security the data and impacts. as supervisor peskin mentioned, with the sunset prosecute vision, it is to review data and ensure we are doing this the correct way. now we don't have a standard way of logging every live monitoring request or every time we asked for historical footage. 810 requires a process for recording if relating to a first

amendment activity that is one carve out. but we don't i department wide standardized way of logging or auditing. this requires that will give us the data to be able to assess to hold off the stp to assess dast a can't tell you we have data now today on all of the reasons we approximately historical footage or why we have done live monitoring we are hoping with this we gather that data. do quarterly reports which is require federal it moves forward. or the annual report required by 19b if this moves forward. >> before we take questions i want to reminds you the sir impact report was submitted with peace and coit but not wanted to reflect all of the revisions that have been made. we are waiting for it to are moved through this body. when you submit to full board we

will submit the impact report that is updated. and that's the report nacovers the civil liberty's impacts and mitigating measures the department will take. we are open for questions you may have. >> thank you. supervisor chan. >> thank you. chair peskin. my question is, i want to clarify for the presentation that you created. you know the footage for the january 28 you included which i have watchd that over and over again approximate as well as the one you provided for the january 28, 20 ton and the july 31 of 22 both footageings i watched both over and over again. very tragic and unfortunate incidents. but those footages and per your existing, current policy, that

was provided to you with the existing policy without the amendment? >> with the current practice. concern practice is to make the question. yes. >> right. >> i want to clarify that they remember successful arrests made. so i want to clarify that. i think this is more a comment than a request. the way that i'm viewing this situation those live nothing the richmonday on the next door and the covered by the chronicle. written by the healther knight the cat converters. with witnesses and vo footage provided to the sfpd.

the -- suspect or the nash could allegeed involved in the crime were on the scene and the police arrive and the question was that like arrests account not be made. and the person was let go. of course, investigations still pending. it is a good example. it was a property crime and no one was injured. was in the violent crime but -- in this case from just my point of new a live and witnesses live video footage is a lot of it is what we are talking about. historic footage not much but about live monitoring and what considered coming live monitoring versus when does it become a historical footage and

procedure involved. even i think this is good a good example if you were live monitoring the situation you probably would not be able to make the arrest you have witnesses and all that. and so -- there are moments i'm kinds of like curious and have questions about what is the result what -- is the champion of success you are looking for that sfpd is looking for for live monitor figure in is an example produce no results. granted if there is a violent incident occur live. sure. but i think -- i just like to have a better understanding what is the measure of success or the matrix for measuring success for live monitoring. why good morning, supervisor peskin and mandelman and chan and david lazar the san

francisco police department. supervisor, the 2th example is commentary on that. thank goodness we have video to conduct our investigation moving forward. we wish we knew the owner of the car. we did not. but that is open investigation. we are moving forward. you know the measure of success is whether or not we are able to keep our community safe. whether we are able top apprehend those involved in violent crime you think about live monitoring. say for example on a block in the richmond we were seeing an on going robbery series or elder low attacked or a horrific type crime like that. imagine if we had the ability to ask a business owner if we can look through the cameras live between 4 and 6 in the afternoon we know the crime is happening i'm making an example that is not happening now.

but imagine if we were able to look through that video and watch what is anything on in real time and allocate resources as necessary. there are probably situations we put a plain clothes off there and they may be spotted. use technology to vow that area >> the tools that we have and have had. and have had the ability to do but now we are codifying that is one example. >> chief, i don't mean to interrupt the fact you brought up that example in fact i do have an example in clement in the afternoon on a broad daylight. as hawell is one person attacking both like park [inaudible] i will name drop it did happen and police officer were on the scene and nothing happened. like that is i'm kind of giving

an example again like live monitoring versus a live police officer standing on the streets and watching this happening. still there was no result in anything that happened to actually on clement street, it is actually in the afternoon. no one 2-4 p.m. but nothing happened to the individuals had a physical confrontation with one of the shop owners or staff. along the few shopos clement. it actually did happen. i -- again i am in a space where i respectfully disagree about why live monitoring is better than having officers patrolling the spaces. >> supervisor, a couple things one i'm not familiar with that incident i love to talk about with you more off line what occurred. and i will say this, the we are

not saying that live monitoring is better than having foot patrol or foot beats. we and right now we are down 535 police officers in san francisco. which should be a concern for everyone. we are not saying live monitoring replaces policing but that it is a tool this police officers could use within reason in the confines of policy with safe guard in accomplice to make sure we do it legal ly, ethically, safe guarding civil rights of everyone and having an additional tool to do policing. and you know i'm making the examples of live monitoring clement street. so that we can police and so that we can protect public safety and have the tools. i don't want to confuse the 2 or say the police are not doing jobs we should not have more tools no police officers should do jobs and we need the tools to

do our job correctly. if you are experiencing under -- if we as a city experiencing under staffing just for patrolling, it makes me curious about how effective and impactful that you will have staffing for live monitoring. and. upon again, i am in a space i am questioning the effectiveness of the tool. or the strategy in this approach. of course i have no doubt about historic footage and many steps you obtain as you do already obtaining footage as part of your evidence process. and again, it is the live monitoring pos i have questions. approximate let me put it out there. this is in the the questions about as our own police department practice. i think that there are actually technology companies out there

right now preying on the situation. and i think this they are technology umps can out there and i know we have flagged ring as an example in the policy. but i will say think there are technologies be it -- you know driverless vehicles having their camera rolling around town or many other technologies that is perhaps it is infancy at this moment and this is about surveillance. and glad the voters voters to ban facial recognition. but that does not mean that it just banning the city using facial recognition that does not money it does not exist, it does. and so having all sorts of types of surveillance technology being developed, contained be developed. and it just seem it is that it takes once we approve this that

it really allowing the san francisco police department being able to sort of advocate and explore and allowing other tech companies to thrive and flood nose technology in san francisco. for practice both for individual and for business owners. again how do we define business owners? if union square benefit district decide to when they have already the camera turn it overto sfpd or groups dp merchants turn it over for live monitoring. those are privacy upon concern. i agree with that. because that puts us in a space we have never experienced before and there seems to be expressed concerns from bar association and our police commission i

think having a year sunset date or 15 months even i'm just i don't know. i have a lot of questions. >> supervisor, thank you very much for irrelevant putting out your feeling on this and thought on this. to be clear this is in the facial recognition. it is not been biometrics. not about any of those cars driving carless or driver will. but what it is about you know this is policy with safe guards and accountability. captain level approvals that last 24 hour. it is about being able to view area when is we feel like well is a public safety concern or when we have large crowds and have to sdeel with reallocating resources. it is using technology to do things more efficiently, safer, mart and all in the name of make

surety public is safe. and that is what this is about we have 8.10 the safe guards and rails that are in place. to think would the not benefit public is not really what we are talking about here. >> i think general low speaking, my response is the traditional way of police operation has worked. and i am in the conversation has been at least the last couple years is under staffing and in shortage i'm concerned about in a space where to say this is somehow a tool that will make it safer. i have down thes and questions.

the end of the day it is having a police officer out there patrolling having our police officer doing the investigation in bring results and rests. so that is -- where i'm today. i will make my position clear i'm not in a space where i can vote to support this but i'm happy to make support amendments to make it better. and that is where i stand. thank you chair peskin and thank you for the time yoochl thank you supervisor chan. supervisor mandelman, any comments or questions? >> not especially i want to thank you chair peskin for had hen a long process around this. and i think for hearing lots of different perspectives and try

to find something that does reasonably address the privacy occurrence raise exclude allows for the department to use a technology that is out there that other diameters are able to use. approximate this may or may not address the broader questions whether we are as a city effectively addressing the public safety issues the tool is out well and seems foolish not to try to use it as language as we have guard rail in place. i think that is what you tried to do. i'm in gratitude for your work i like to be added to the cosponsor. >> thank you, supervisor. i would make you the experience i'm not the sponsor. i believe that the sponsor is the mayor. so -- you are now the mayor's cosponsor. all right. with that open this item 7 up it

public comment. why members of the public who wish to speak and join nothing person lineup at this time. for those remote, call 415-554-0001 then access code: 2496 266 4190 ##. once kickeded press star 3 to enter. those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicated you have been unmuted then begin your comment. before i turn this over to our chinese translator, chair peskin, we have 26 callers on the line would you like to set a speaker time at 2 minutes or one minute at is this time. i have to be at the land use committee at 1.

. 30. i'm doing the math on that. if we are at 26 mou and grows and you can't do a minute half, can you? >> no. and chair peskin i reminds all we heard these before for the last before we went to recess for 3 different time i don't see how we will have any public comment this is is so different. than when we have heard. >> all right. >> based on that advice with 26 in the queue we will go with a minute. >> speaker time for this public speaker time will be a minute. i would like to turn this over to our translator for chinese to make announcements. [instructions in chinese].

>> yes. our first peek in the room can start. >> thank you. good morning. electronic frontier foundation a district 8 residents. despite amendments to this ordinance it is clear it needs more work. mgz to the hundreds of public comments you heard over the course of the past 3 hearings you received letters of opposition from the police commission, bar association of san francisco and coalition of 2 dozen community organizations. these letters have high loyaltied the existing proposals to civil rights and privacy and cautioned the lack of ash counselable for you year pol pilot with no met tricks for success. it would be premature to push it

forward as it is. and would endanger the rights of communities of color. abortion seekers. im grants and all of san francisco. i urge the committee to amend the ordinance and minimum should delay vote to allow time to vet public safety and civil right's implications. thank you. >> good morning i'm janet i am the vice president of the san francisco council of district merchants. and the hair of legislative committee and the president of the glen park association and i am a district 8 resident and business owner. the san francisco council of district merchant board and legislative committee support the 19b noncity entity camera

policy. negative impacts of salt, theft, side shows, graffiti. followed the legislation and foal its addresses concerns raised boy advocates. we feel that as business oranges we invested a great deal in our camera security systems and should be our prerogative how they are used. thank you. >> good morning i'm jeff a criminal defense attorney and member of lawyer's guild born and raise in the san francisco from 1980 of i'm concern body this policy. the last and involved in the gang injunction fight. and the gang injunction was a tool the police claimed they would use to

help. that tool was focussed on black and brown communities. this policy is another tool that will likely be focussed on black and brown communities. the concern over live monitoring is very learning for me. 2 year old daughter i was part of the george floyd protest 2 years ago and i than the pd monitored those and this is the action that is going to happen in this policy that is going to suppress free association and speesh and urge you to reject this policy. thank you. >> i'm julie from the bar association. and really in response to supervisor chan's occurrence i share similar sxrns like this group to consider hearing from at least 2 experts with the

police department to talk about rishl disparity and how to rampet up without additional guard rails. second a professor from american university ferguson, the leading expert on surveillance in the united states. i think you should hear from them. this has been tried else where in the country i have not heard is when is the data look like from where this has been tried. has it worked? what were lessons. 30,000 cameras in chicago were pulled back. in los angeles pulls back we need to hear about the live surveillance a warrant in the meantime that's our position. >> robert lee young i was fire

friday my job at pest control and foal if police had access to role time cameras in the sro's given [inaudible] that you would had the chance to catch them making fun of mow for being molested. i told my coworker being a thief. [inaudible] and pray that [inaudible] and [inaudible] and came back and told me to. i don't want to [inaudible] i want to get my job back [inaudible] we had access in real time i told what happened they would tell they were purposefully [inaudible] and let them have cameras who [inaudible]. >> are there other speakers in the chambers if not we will go to remote comment. upon there are no additional speakers in the room. first remote commenter.

>> good afternoon. this is paulina i'm motivated advance public safety and commune work i have done [inaudible] this item is critical. i call in the about it a few time and here we are again following public safety policy language changes. i support private [inaudible] to allow access to the fool footage including shooting, live monitoring [inaudible] and the [inaudible] sunset date to allow for reevaluation. i support beens privacy and safety. i support [inaudible] who believes this policy is needed. please, move this item to the full board. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next caller?

>> good morning i'm crystal and i upon rate chinese for affirmative okay we urge the adoption of the amendment. this policy would not [inaudible] cameras from the city and giving pd access to live monitoring the not prevent crimes from happening. studies schoe that cameras don't deter crime, drug or [inaudible]. pretending that it will if i can the issue of community state is an over simplified solution. rather than finding new ways to watch crime we must reinvest in communities studying victim service language access and economic opportunity the policy must be amended create program terse to prevent the abusive power restricting it to [inaudible] circumstances and protectingim guarantees and others vulnerable groups for --

no audio. i believe their phone got cut off. sounded like it disconnected. speaker time e lapsed. next caller, please. >> hello i'm emily on behalf san front chamber. i offer support of the policy. san francisco residents and private businesses should be empowered use how the security systems are utilized. real time monitoring with consent requires the ability to be strategic with addressing crimes where there are impacts in complaintses. we support and ask the board of supervisors approve tow pd can use the video footage as sxefdz a real time crime tool.

thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> hello supervisors. thank you for the robust discussion on this. i'm a native and resident and small business owner in san francisco. every day my business is impacted by crime which frightens our customers and employees. i support implementing the new pd surveillance policy as a tool this law enforcement will be able to use in very specific circumstances to help solve crime. i truly believe in beens privacy and public safety and appreciated the presentation by the sfpd. agree given pipe and volume of crime more is needed to help protect citizens and businesses. this clear that there are

sufficient rules built in protect privacy of residents. enforce this surveillance policy and move it forward to the full board for a vote. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> i'm matthew i live in district oneip wanted thank my supervisor chan for her skepticism. i think the pd's presentation shown why these extended powers are not needed. it is very easy to request historic footage concerning crime and use that to investigate. nobody has really shown how the live monitoring would aid in the investigations and raises the [inaudible] there will be police sitting in front of machine tors watching and waiting for a crime to happen and when they are doing is role time surveillance. i don't see accept straighted

how that helps do investigation and i hope that this will be extended and given more discussion until more analysis can be done on what will happen if this bill moves forward. >> thank you. >> thank you >> next caller. will i live in district 8 and hear to voice opposition to this dangerous policy this poses a threat to civil rights. we don't want to live in a city where people conduct live surveillance using cameras owned by private citizen. this has too many loopholes with zero evidence tell reduce crime. tell cause an affect other state and federal law enforcement agencies use shared footage to target peaceful protefrts. queer community and anyone

seeking an abortion. if tan san francisco cares about being a leader in the country we mode to bolster protection and safe guard civil rights not build more surveillance. i urge you to shut down this proposal and vote, no. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next caller. we will move on to the next caller. >> good afternoon chair approximate supervisors senior policy manager. urge you to oppose further delay the vote on this ordinance. contrary, hypothetical scenes and police talk and fear amongering [inaudible] voter in san francisco support attive

props to public safety that don't rely on surveillance. well is no disputing pd has [inaudible] and [speak very fast] decades and defiance of regulations reenforce public trarnz paraphernalias and oversight and it needs work. communities have and continue to be harmed by over policing we ask you not permit with expansion to [inaudible] please, take the time to consider this policy and incorporate the concern. thank you. >> i'm diana stay lover president of the neighborhood association district 3. i'm speak nothing support of the amended policy on sfpd surveillance technology and 2 capacities one personal low as a

50 year aclu member and as the founder and president of the neighborhoods. you received a letter from the [inaudible] neighborhood association in support of the amended policy. which represents the majority of our sick,000 plus numbers and neighborhood residents and businesses on the northern waterfront from the gateway to bay street. survase of the neighborhood show violence and property crimes in the past 2 years. they include armed assaultses to residents going to and coming from restaurantses. employees of businesses report thefts and assaults the cameras are approved nonconfrontational method for enforce am of laws or deterring serious crimes. legislation. >> time elapsed. >> thank you. >> can we have the next caller?

>> good morning i'm upon bill the president of the outer sunset merchant association and commissioner for veteran of the city of san francisco. [inaudible] you have to have the tools to do your job if don't you will not succeed. he mentioned we are down 535 police officers. once again we need the tools this . is does in the give access to video surveillance, system not door bell or without consent of the owner. i'm retired from the airforce and [inaudible] without the tools and you know what the tools you. i'm supportive of this policy and if we get more police officers we not have this conversation. we are down 535. please make the right decision. thank you. >> thank you. next caller.

>> yes. good morning. tracie speaking on behalf open privacy and media alliance. ask this language related role time monitoring significant events with crowds for the purposes of place am of police personnel be taken out of the policy and not authorized. the reteen live monitoring of any large public event kills public participation. and is [inaudible] to san front's traditional defense of the right to protest peacefully without police capture. sfpd for decades policed large community gatherings without using third party cameras. pride, carnival, protests, marches. that should not change. police take that out of the

ordinance and this policy. thank you. >> thank you. we will try our the caller who was unattending at -- see if they are on the line yet. that line is unattended. can we get our next caller. skwoo autobiography. we will move on to the next caller.

>> hi. this is tracie from i just spoke. >> we were -- if you have already spoken, minute elapse xdz we will move on. we are allowing an american per person today. next caller. >> i'm [inaudible] i'm a senior gentleman relation coordinator for council islamic relations. we very much concerned with elements of the proposal. there are many loopholes which lead to potential civil rights and liberty's violations. we heard from many community members today and via e mail or letters to the board raising

occurrence. we feel that the proposal had not pass. the very minimum there should be changes made to the proposal to present sfpd from using private cameras for live monitoring except in [inaudible] we want to make sure that you have protections for people hor exercising the first, amendment rights and make sure well are amendments to ensure that sfpd will not stock pile footage. there are lots of amendments and we want to pause and -- speaker time e lapsed. >> next speaker, please. i'm nick a san francisco resident and business owner. the reality is tht city no long are governs the tenderloin and portions of soma and the mission. those yers controlled by cartels

the dealers they sent are flooding our city with fentanyl. destroying people and families. giving sfpd access to cameras will help them to get evidence they need to ultimately shut down the open air drug markets. and i was disturbed by supervisor chan dismissive of property crimes if someone cuts your converter out of your car i promise you you will consider it to be serious. >> thank you. >> next caller, please. >> i'm eddie hernandez and live in district 11 and work near civic center i'm here as a latin x worker and co, ligz and sfpd want to exploit the working

class of san francisco when workers using powers to the headed to the streets [inaudible]. we [inaudible] [hard to understand speaker]. i want to remind folks the-of ordinance. first up the mayor abandon her commitment to divest from community [inaudible] and she doubled down on [inaudible] with policies like this and [inaudible] dismanualed police reform and support for black and brown communities impacted by police [inaudible]. pd given us no reason to trust them they [inaudible] radio chat gives them time to get stories straight when nay fail to de[inaudible]. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

>> i'm matt roy a resident of d within for 20 years i support this policy. stsdz have shown that this surveillance data is an important component of public safety and use has been shown to arc void arresting innocent people that must be considered. again, i support this proposal and hope you will. thanks. >> thank you. next caller. this is [inaudible] from the asian-american injustice caucus we believe in the policy has [inaudible] that [inaudible] civil rights without public safety benefit. allows the police to require the cameras for live surveillance and share it with outside agencies including the federal

government. and sfpd claperating to illegally spy on [inaudible] asian communities, [inaudible] the board of supervisors has a moral responsibility to finds that any surveillance program not be harm and will believe that it is in the fulfilled. ask you to amend or delay the vote on the policy to allow time to sufficient low vet the public safety impacts. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next caller. >> good afternoon supervisors marie here. i am calling to support moving this forward to the full board. it is a good policy. i stand with victims of crime and the eterly afraid to walk on

their own now and i stand with small business owners who are really taking a beating every day because of where our city is sitting with regard to crime. and the one thing that has come out loud and clear and i would -- sounds like it was coming from the supervisors as well, is that we don't have enough police. we need more police officers. so -- you know regardless. what you feel the surveillance, i heard multiple people say, i heard supervisor chan say -- you know if -- the police staffing is not there there is nothing that can be done. we definitelynies to increase police staffing. why speaker time -- >> thank you. next caller. >> [inaudible] can you hear me?

>> yes, we can. please, proceed. >> i'm monica i'm a northern california organizer [inaudible] policy center and resident of district 9. we oppose this policy that will grant access to private live monitor thanksgiving is a civil liberty disaster for san francisco to engage in breech individual privacy is a shame. they cannot be trusted have access to the cameras and has a record of abuse and discrimination from illegal black life matter activist and sexual assault ciphers. handing this over to them will make us less safe. sfpd claim today empowers san francisco to help stop or solve criminal days. san francisco residents and business owners who [inaudible]

footage and information with sfpd is already do so this . is about expanding police access to private technology and also. >> speak time -- >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> good morning this is jennifer joans. i'm calling to urge rowels committee to amend this ordinance. or to lay the committee vote on the policy to allow time to vet the potential public safety and civil learnt's impact and ensour arc sugar efficacy of the program. the policy provides [inaudible] and would be a dangerous precedent to gift police powers. without prune crime reduction benefit. the mayor and the policy still police the cameras including door bell and other third party

feeds to conduct surveillance protected first amendment activities. stock pile and share with outside parties. the surveillance technology ordinance passed ensure communities have a say hacommunities police are allowed deploy. san francisco remade it clear they reject this. people should not have to give up basic liberties for a year's experience. >> thank you. >> next caller? >> 30 second worning would be agree the police department concerns and want support amendments as i heard them. i think that this should be about investigating and deterring crime not mass surveillance. i think the proposed controls are general low sufficient and could be updated in the future. i like the 15 mont sunset prosecute vision. i spoke to that prior.

i think that may be more reporting the first year every 6 months or every quarter. >> might alleviate occurrence. >> thank you or allow greater transparency and finally if someone can check the sunset prosecute vision language on page 6, section 4, the last 3 lines the wording is screwing perhaps that got cleaned up in the amendments but may be the deputy city attorney can look. thank you for listening. more next time. >> thank you. >> next caller, please. >> hello good morning [inaudible] [speaking chinese]

this evening would you like to provide translation for us? >> sure. i'm joan san. so, had i think about this surveillance policy i have a lot of question.

with this policy reduce crime? what used for emergency use? and how long they kept? when i look xup there are still a lot of information out there, i concern like will the police department going to share this data to other agency? so not until that policy you know giving us a clear understanding that it will help to reduce crime to prevent it or start deterrent i would like to you know hear more birch make that decision. >> thank you. >> can we move on to the next caller, please. [speak chinese.

>> thank you. my name is [inaudible]. instead of using the surveillance policy? to help preen vent crime.

i think it is more beneficial the city can use the money for language service. have -- department can speak more than one language. and also build the relationship especially when the crime happened. how the person who the receive this treatment can have language assistance so this they with you know, bring it up and how to prevent the crime. >> thank you. jop next caller, please.

hello [speak chinese] thank you.

mr. long. >> i'm jen a san francisco residentively wonder if this surveillance policy using the camera is effective. i rather see the city using the budget for education to build racial harmony to make language accessible so people understand each other tho to provide skill so people have the skill to do their work and respect each other. relying on surveillance caranot going to help to prevent the crime happen. it only just record what already happened.

i rather see the city use the funds for all the issues that i mentioned earlier. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi. good afternoon i'm kevin i member of the sudden fran police commission. we vice president [inaudible] and myself submitid letter and i will not say it again. i want to thank supervisor peskin for the thoughtful changes. further time is needed. there has not been hearing with experts in the field on policy. and i believe more time would allow hearings of the commission and the body to weigh in. and ask for mechlt fist the policy moved forward it make data collection requirements age, demographics and

[inaudible] markers on those that are surveilled. concerns are around the unintended consequences if the department does intonight to surveill live monitoring or recordings of incidents around abortion clinics and make them per of the case file and subpoena from an unfriendly federal government. this mission will act in authority and thank chair peskin for conif he were thanksgiving to regulate the policy of the past we believe act carefully had civil right and privacy. >> thank you. i'm jan i live in district 2. i passport this policy temperature is positive tool for patrol to use in specific circumstances to help solve

crimes which could be critical in regard to violent crime its not a massive expansion and business owners and private citizens can opt in or not whatever they decide to do. this is about access where prosperity and paying protest is protected. so you care about the safety of san francisco citizens do support this surveillance policy. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> hi. good morning i'm carolyn and i'm calling on behalf of san francisco public defender's office. on behalf of the office calling to ask you delay the vote on the policy today and you amend the legislation to include the proposed changes submitted by the san francisco surveillance coalition. we appreciate all the work the committee president peskin and

chair peskin and supervisor chan done regarding the policy. submitted bite sfpd but we continue to have occurrence. take time to examine all the consequences of the massive changes and julie tran stated the study impact in other jurisdiction. you must vet the potential unintended consequences and civil liberty impacts of sweeping surveillance tools such as live monitoring and exonerating evidence is not destroyed as a result of the policy. this is extremely important changes in san francisco and we urge to you take time to [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> move on to the next caller. >> hello i'm a resident of district 7. i want to ask how exact low is the ability to conduct live

surveillance curtail crime limp is no data backing this. over all i'm suspicious of sfpd to conduct to access third party cameras. why is the concern system insufficient this has in the been addressed i urge prierzs to take time and question the logic behind implementing without further amendments. thank you. >> next caller. >> hello i'm leah and i'm [inaudible] on my lunch break and so it is off the clock but i vote no on the policy sfp dpshgs has proven themselves to be untrustworthy. they have taken dna from rape victims to charge rape victims. with crimes instead of investigating the crimes against

them the rapes that were committed against them. i see no reason why they should be entrusted with more of our civil liberties and does in the comfort me that people opt in to discard my civil liberties trash this and keep our civil liberties. thank you. >> thank you. i believe next caller will be the last. anyone else jumps in. can we have our next caller, please. >> i'm calling [inaudible] native of san francisco and not calling on behalf of any nonprofit. i support this surveillance too much i support sfpd and encourage to you do the same. everyone says this tool does not work. get up from out of your rock go to new york and london they use

this and have this they are more safe than san francisco. give sfpd the tools it needs. on dmafl of every rational san francisco the activists you ruined it. >> thank you. >> next caller. please. >> okay. we have no additional callers for public comment at this time. >> all right. public comment on item 7 is closed. and the matter is back before the committee. i think the 3 members of this committee have stated and restated their positions as they have evolved since may. and with that, on a motion to

sends this item to the full board? with a positive recommendation or hold on i will amend i will amend. i am getting ahead of myself. before i do that this will be back in 15 months time. assuming the board of supervisors passes this. and there are metrics set forth in the policy as to when we want to see measured. and with that, as i mentioned earlier, i would like to in the long title at lines 4 and 5, change the sunset date from a year to 15 months for the reasons i stated earlier. and in second 4 of the legislation on page number 6, at line 21, make the same change from one year to 15 months. and at line 23 to remove the

unnecessary language at is already referred to, the 3 words, to be removed. the city attorney already authorized to remove this policy from the appendixes to the admin code it is stated that language is unnecessary. on the amendments to change one year to 15 montes and remove the unnecessary 3 words at line 23 on page 6 a roll call. >> mr. chair we had two callers jump on late. would you like to take them. why not. can we have our next public commenter. >> >> sorry i already commented: >> thank you. can we have our next caller? good morning i'm corey declark

an impact attorney. and i was one of the attorneys researching the bar association's letter. 2 comments first policy cites no data demonstrating this is effective and many people pointed out. assumption should be enhandled surveillance constitutional risk. in 2022 an expectation supported by data before the implementation not after. the policy is vague. people have pointed out but this morning no one know pointed out the investigations of active misdemeanor or felony supports live monitoring would not be defined. i found assistand chief's example revealing. imagine a neighborhood crimes committed between 4 and 6 the police could monitor using live cameras that area between 4 and 6 every day this is what the sproerd warned against when it

said the fourth amendment protects. >> time elapsed. >> thank you. we have no additional callers at this time. >> on the motion to amend. roll call. >> yes. supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> and then on the motion to send as amended with recommendation. >> on that motion supervisor chan. >> no. >> supervisor mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. >> the motion passes. with member chan dissenting in committee. we are adjourned.

>> it was an outdoor stadium for track and field, motorcycle and auto and rugby and cricket located in golden gate park, home to professional football, lacross and soccer. adjacent to the indoor arena. built in the 1920s. the san francisco park commission accepted a $100,000 gift from the estate to build a memorial in honor of pioneers in the area. the city and county of san francisco contributed an

additional $200,000 and the stadium was built in a year. in the 1930s it was home to several colleges such as usf, santa clara and st. mary's for competition and sporting. in 1946 it became home to the san francisco 49ers where they played nearly 25 years. the stayed de yam sat 60,000 fans. many caught game the rooftops and houses. the niners played the last game against the dallas cowboys january 3, 1971 before moving to candlestick park. the stadium hosted other events before demolition in 1989. it suffered damages from the earthquake. it was reconstructed to seat 10,000 fans with an all weather track, soccer field and scoreboards. it hosts many northern california football championship games.

local high schools sacred heart and mission high school used the field for home games. the rivalry football games are sometimes played here. today it is a huge free standing element, similar to the original featuring tall pink columns at the entrance. the field is surrounded by the track and used by high school and college football and soccer. it is open for public use as well. >> my name is sylvia and i'm the owner of the mexican bistro.

we have been in business for 18 years and we first opened on garry street in san francisco, and now we are located in a beautiful historic building. and we are part of the historical building founded in 1776. at the same time as the mission delores in san francisco. (♪♪) our specialty food is food from central mexico. it's a high-end mexican food based on quality and fresh ingredients. we have an amazing chef from yucatán and we specialize on molotov, that are made with pumpkin seeds. and we're also known for handmade tortillas and we make our own fresh salsa.

and we have cocktails, and we have many in the bar. we have specialty drinks and they are very flavorrable and very authentic. some of them are spicy, some are sour, but, again, we offer high-quality ingredients on our drinks as well. (♪♪) we have been in san francisco for 27 years, and our hearts are here. we are from mexico, but after 27 years, we feel part of the community of san francisco. it is very important for us to be the change, the positive change that is happening in san francisco. the presidio in particular, they're doing great efforts to bring back san francisco, what it was. a lot of tourism and a lot of

new restaurants and the new companies. san francisco is international and has a lot of potential. (♪♪) so you want to try authentic mexican food and i invite you to come to our bistro located on 50 moroo avenue in presidio. and i'll wait here with my open arms and giving you a welcome to try my food. (♪♪) ♪♪ >> san francisco! ♪♪

>> this is an exhibition across departments highlighting different artworks from our collection. gender is an important part of the dialogue. in many ways, this exhibition is contemporary. all of this artwork is from the 9th century and spans all the way to the 21st century. the exhibition is organized into seven different groupings or themes such as activities, symbolism, transformation and others. it's not by culture or time period, but different affinities between the artwork. activities, for example, looks at the role of gender and how

certain activities are placed as feminine or masculine. we have a print by uharo that looks at different activities that derisionly performed by men. it's looking at the theme of music. we have three women playing traditional japanese instruments that would otherwise be played by men at that time. we have pairings so that is looking within the context of gender in relationships. also with how people are questioning the whole idea of pairing in the first place. we have three from three different cultures, tibet, china and japan. this is sell vanity stot relevar has been fluid in different time periods in cultures.

sometimes being female in china but often male and evoking features associated with gender binaries and sometimes in between. it's a lovely way of tying all the themes together in this collection. gender and sexuality, speaking from my culture specifically, is something at that hasn't been recently widely discussed. this exhibition shows that it's gender and sexuality are actually have been considered and complicated by dialogue through the work of artists and thinking specifically, a sculpture we have of the hindu deities because it's half pee male and half male. it turns into a different theme

in a way and is a beautiful representation of how gender hasn't been seen as one thing or a binary. we see that it isn't a modest concept. in a way, i feel we have a lot of historical references and touch points throughout all the ages and in asian cultures. i believe san francisco has close to 40% asian. it's a huge representation here in the bay area. it's important that we awk abouk about this and open up the discussion around gender. what we've learned from organizing this exhibition at the museum is that gender has been something that has come up in all of these cultures through all the time periods as something that is important and relevant. especially here in the san francisco bay area we feel that it's relevant to the conversations that people are having today. we hope that people can carry

that outside of the museum into that outside of the museum into >> we are right now in outer richmond in the last business area of this city. this area of merchants is in the

most western part of san francisco, continue blocks down the street they're going to fall into the pacific ocean. two blocks over you're going to have golden gate park. there is japanese, chinese, hamburgers, italian, you don't have to cook. you can just walk up and down the street and you can get your cheese. i love it. but the a very multicultural place with people from everywhere. it's just a wonderful environment. i love the richmond district. >> and my wife and i own a café we have specialty coffee drinks, your typical lattes and mochas and cappuccinos, and for lunches, sandwiches and soup and salad. made fresh to order. we have something for everybody >> my shop is in a very cool part of the city but that's one

of the reasons why we provide such warm and generous treats, both physically and emotionally (♪♪) >> it's an old-fashioned general store. they have coffee. other than that what we sell is fishing equipment. go out and have a good time. >> one of my customers that has been coming here for years has always said this is my favorite store. when i get married i'm coming in your store. and then he in his wedding outfit and she in a beautiful dress came in here in between getting married at lands end and to the reception, unbelievable. (♪♪)

>> the new public health order that we're announcing will require san franciscans to remain at home with exceptions only for essential outings. >> when the pandemic first hit we kind of saw the writing on the walls that potentially the city is going to shut all businesses down. >> it was scary because it was such an unknown of how things were going to pan out. i honestly thought that this might be the end of our business. we're just a small business and we still need daily customers. >> i think that everybody was on edge. nobody was untouched. it was very silent. >> as a business owner, you

know, things don't just stop, right? you've still got your rent, and all of the overhead, it's still there. >> there's this underlying constant sense of dread and anxiety. it doesn't prevent you from going to work and doing your job, it doesn't stop you from doing your normal routine. what it does is just make you feel extra exhausted. >> so we began to reopen one year later, and we will emerge stronger, we will emerge better as a city, because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> this place has definitely been an anchor for us, it's home for us, and, again, we are part of this community and the community is part of us. >> one of the things that we strived for is making everyone in the community feel welcome and we have a sign that says

"you're welcome." no matter who you are, no matter what your political views are, you're welcome here. and it's sort of the classic san francisco thing is that you work with folks. >> it is your duty to help everybody in san francisco.

good afternoon. everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the september 12th regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisor. i'm joined by dean preston