>> good morning and welcome to rules committee of san francisco board of surprisers for today, monday november 7, 2022. the day before election day. don't forget to vote if you have not already done so, you've got about 30 hours left. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined by vice chair supervisor mandelman and supervisor connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young, mr. young, do you have any announcements this morning? >> yes. the board of

supervisors and its committees will convene hybrid meetings that will allow in-person attendance, remote access, and public comment via teleconference. visit the sfgovtv website at (www.sfgovtv.org) to stream the live meetings and watch meetings on demand or watch live meetings on san francisco cable channels 26, 28, 78 or 99 (depending on your provider). members of the public may provide public comment in-person at the above noticed location or remotely via teleconference (detailed instructions available at: https://sfbos.org/remot e-meeting -call) allowed to first and those on the telephone line-the the number is 415-655-0001. and then enter the meeting id of 2 (488) 987-7754 then press pound and pound again. when connected you'll hear the meeting discussion and muted and in listening mode only. when your item interest comes up and public comment is called those in person should line up to speak and those on the telephone should dial

star 3. if on the telephone remember to turn down the television and listening devices. we'll take public comment those in person first and then go to the public comment telephone line. you may submit in writing e-mail them to myself, the rules committee clerk victor.young@sfgov.org. or city hall-that completes my initial comments. >> thank you mr. clerk. could you please read the first item? >> yes, first on the agenda is item 1. motion approve, the mayor appointment of

alex ludlum to successor agency term ending november 3, 2026. >> thank you mr. young. colleagues you recall that we confirmed the mayor's nomination of mr. ludlum to a balance of a term that expired last thursday and he has gotten his feet under him on the successor agency commission. i concur with the mayor as to his reappointment. is mr. ludlum present? >> come on up, alex. >> tell us how the initial term on the redevelopment successor commission has been. what have you learned? >> well, i learned very much supervisor. i have been parsing budgets and i feel

been able to make valuable contributions pointing out where items are of unusual cost. i also i think been a valuable year to the district 6 which i occupy helping with some of the parks in transbay working with the east cut cdb director andrew robinson to advocate for shifting ocii staff attention so that they can meet critical dates which have to do with fundraising and joint ventures with the transbay authority. i feel confident in my contributions to the commission and would be very pleased to serve another term. >> thank you mr. ludlum. any updates

on block 4? >> block 4, none that i believe are official, but you know, we can tell which way the wind is blowing, and i expect ongoing discussions to continue to advance that project. >> and then while i got you here with regard to 706 mission street, which is in said district, i'm pleased to report that i'm not going to have to hold a hearing on their request to extened out their last 3 and $3 and a half million payment because they have agreed to make it by the 31 day of march of 2023, which is acceptable to this supervisor so we will have that affordable housing payment in hand through your agency in about 5 months. >> yes. if i may,

i'll say director was most appreciative of your call to him on the matter. >> excellent. any questions or comments from committee members? seeing none, is there any public comment on item number 1? >> yes. members of the public who wish to speak on the item and joining in person should line up to speak at this time. those remotely please call 415-655-0001 and enter meeting id 2488987754. pound and pound again. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. those in the queue wait until the system indicates you are unmuted. there is nobody in the room for public comment at this time and there is nobody in line on the telephone for public

comment. >> public comment is closed. mr. ludlum, thank you for your service and willingness to continue to serve. i will make a motion to amend the subject. motion by removing the word rejecting in line 3 and word rejects in line 12 and recommend that we snd the item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation. on that multi-faceted motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion- [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> next is item number 2. motion approving directing-excuse me, motion approving rejecting the mayor nomination for appointment of mikem lambert term ending october 8, 2026 to children and family first commission. i was able to verify a

rejancy waver is not required for mr. lambert. >> thank you for that and thank you mr. lambert for your willingness to continue service our children and families and for the mayor's putting your name forward. come on up. if there is anything you would like to say, i do have some questions not for you, but really for this panel relative to the motion that is before us that makes representations on the mayor's behalf i'm not willing to make but we can figure that out. that is just a technical issue. >> good morning chair peskin, vice chair mandelman, supervisor chan. thank you so much for your consideration of my appointment to the children and family first commission. as background, tomorrow marks my 30 year working in public libraries, and i had a charm ed career, in particular since about

1998 i have been working with youth and families to prepare young people 0-5 to enter kindergarten ready to read and learn and succeed in life through my prior experience in san mateo county library i have lots of experience working with first 5. since i have been with city and county of san francisco i served on the our children our families council so i have a lot of experience working in this area, and i would be proud to serve and contribute as best i can in this capacity. i do appreciate the mayor's nomination and i appreciate the board of supervisors consideration of my candidacy. >> seems like a good fit for seat number 5, which requires you to be a department representative, and thank you again for your service not only

to this body but to our libraries. are there any questions or comments from committee members? alright; seeing none, any public comment on this item? >> members who wish to speak on the item and joining in person should line up to speak at this time. for those listening remotely call 415-655-0001, enter meeting id 2 (488) 987-7754 then press pound and pound again. once connected you will need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your queue to begin comments. f i do not see anybody in the room for public comment and there is one person on the line for public comment. >> first speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> please proceed. >> excellent. david

pillpel, good morning. happy to speak in support of michael lambert to the children families first commission. director lambert is a excellent city librarian professional and caring and think he will serve well in this capacity. one of my not sure how to say this-one of my favorite department heads. there are many, but he is one of my favorites. i'm sure you will have to tweak page 1 line 17 to page 2 line 6 to remove the reference to the residency waver, but i would urge you to support and approve the mayor's nomination of michael lambert to the children and families first commission. thanks for listening. >> are there any additional speakers on item number 2 mr.

young? >> there are no additional public commenters for this matter. >> alright. public comment is closed. mr. young-this might take care of my technical problem indicated at the beginning of this item that a residency waver was not required, is that correct? >> yes, can amend it to remove any-remove reference to residency waver. i thought mr. lambert lived in the city but i verified he does live thin city. >> there we go. a department head who lives in the city. alright. in that case, because i was not going to be willing to do the representation on page 2, line 3, subsection 4, because i was not

going to say that this board of surprisers exercised due diligence and concluded there was no other possible representative that would be on the mayor, not on this board of supervisors, so i was not go toog do that but it sounds like that matter is mute and i would therefore suggest at line 3 we remove residency requirement waived in the long title. at line 12 and 13 remove the same language, and then eliminate line 17 through-on page 1, through line 6 on page 2 and at line 7 on page 2-actually, we can remove that entire-we can remove everything on page 2.

do you agree madam deputy city attorney? that further moved is only relevant to the residency waver. >> i can verify that myself. the second page regarding the further moved is only language regarding the residency waver. >> yep. i think we can just make those two changes and remove the rest of the motion starting on page 1 at line 17. i mean, you could keep the first 2 representations. i don't know we have to do that. we do not center have to do that so i make a motion to amend the motion by removing everything from line 17 on in the motion and taking out the

residency waived in the long title and remove word rejecting in the long title and remove the word reject at line 12, and send the item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation on that motion a roll call, please. >> yes, on the motion- [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> thank you mr. lambert. do right by our children and our families. next item, please. >> yes, item 3 is hearing consider aopponenting one member term ending october 8, 2026 to children and families first commission. one seat, two applicants. >> thank you mr. clerk. we will hear from these individuals both of whom are for seat number 7, both of

whom would require a residency waver. we'll hear from them in the order they appear on our agenda starting remotely i believe with cesnae crawford and going on to lilli milton. >> good morning everyone. appreciate first of all the flexibility as i deal with covid and recovery from that. thank frz the flexibility and thanks for allowing me to attend remotely. i appreciate it. it is a honor and privilege to be considered for this important role. over the last 25 years i dedicated myself to education and professional experience and supporting diverse communities represented in san francisco. i'm currently the senior executive directive of urban service ymca committed to children family and

communities. in my work i oversee the reflection of the organization which includes our 3 family resource centers within the city county of san francisco. our truancy program, youth development program, wellness and many many more. i had the good fortune to serve community in many ways and come to the recognition without the establishment of relationships and goals of inspiring the voices of community is embedded in everything we do. we will be doing nothing more then making symbolic gestures and not informed action. much of my experience is k-12 non profit justice involved experience. have a proven track record (inaudible) sound evaluation process and implementation of goals and ideas to

completion. given the wide range of services and city wide lens of my work across all populations we serve in san francisco i do believe my experiences would be a great asset to the work ahead. if given the opportunity to serve as a board member i look forward continuing the mission of putting our children and families first in all decision making moving forward. once again, i like to thank the respective board for their time and appreciate the consideration. thank you. >> thank you mr. crawford. now we'll go on to lilli milton. >> good morning. thank you so much supervisor chan, vice chair mandelman and chair peskin. happy to be here. my name is lilli milton and i along with cesnae am honored to put my application forward for children and families first

commission. i sit on the (inaudible) been there over 14 years and hpp is a paramount resource center in the city serving the most vulnerable families focus on pregnant and families 0-5. homeless suvs housing wellness, everything to break the psychof of poverty and further the mission of family resource center. also the core part of fabric in san francisco and implementing integrative family centered services is the parts this is aiming to do so exciting to put forth my application because i feel the opportunity to bring the voices of the providers and families to the board in a dynamic and innovative way is a great opportunity for me and wonderful opportunity for homeless prenatal. i feel that i bring to the commission an

ability to articulate how working together to further the mission of children and families first commission. i feel we have a long way to go in terms of improving our systems and making them more family centered. right now our systems continue to be siloed and while we are a community of great weth we find some of the most core services are underresourced, under staffed and there are a lot of things our community can be doing and commission can be doing and alliance can be doing to further that mission. so, i am thrilled. i think cevnae is a wonderful college and (inaudible) out to the community and make sure the city is putting families first. there are so many systems serving families but not all working together and feel my role on the commission would really create a opportunity for more voice and more integration. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on

this appointment by the board of supervisors to the children and families first commission for seat number 7? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining in person should line up to speak at this time. for those remotely call 415-655-0001, enter meeting id 24889877754 then press pound and pound again. once connected you need to press star 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your queue to begin comment. there is nobody in the room for public comment at this time and we have one caller on the line for public comment. >> first speaker, please. >> hello, my name is

[difficulty hearing speaker ] i can attest to the fact that he is a fair person and sometimes it takes making hard decisions even though it will anger some people and disappoint, he is able to dothat in a safe and compassionate way. (inaudible) 6 o'clock in the morning he is out there helping set up for community events. (inaudible) saying no we cannot do that, because it isn't for the greater community. i think he would be really good at being fair and compassionate and he brings a lens of being very open-minded and not having tunnel vision. think outside the box to be able to elevate families and to help them achieve what they are trying to achieve in a way that is very

compassionate (inaudible) i live in potrero hill public housing (inaudible) very dear to what he does and is true to his word and very compassionate as well as stand his ground when there is a lot of push-back when people dont want to do something but it is for the greater community (inaudible) i thank you very much for letting me speak and you could not get a better person then cesnae. >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> good morning. thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. i am-my name is (inaudible) and i am calling in support of my colleague ms. milton. we both work together at (inaudible) i have

known her the past all most 7 years and just like to say that i have never worked with a more innovative inspiring and compassionate colleague in my life. i wholeheartedly would support and consideration of ms. milton. thank you so much. >> thank you. that completes our list of public commenters for this matter. >> public comment is closed. i want to thank both of the applicants who are both committed and qualified and want to hear from my colleagues. i would just offer this, which is just looking at the 9 seats, all of which now with mr. lambert would be occupied, that it is as we seek

to balance by gender and ethnicity and other criteria heavily weighted to women and for that reason i would lean towards mr. crawford but would love to hear from my colleagues. supervisor chan. >> thank you chair peskin. >> preston, peskin, it is all good. >> i'm sorry (inaudible) >> i have much more followers on twitter. >> i concur with your sentiment chair peskin and about just overwhelming right now the appointees on this body is women. i also see that there is a vacant seat that is a mayoral appointment but love to encourage the mayor's office to

consider ms.- >> the vacant seat is the seat we just filled with mr. lambert. >> that was number 5? >> which i think would make him the only other male out of 9. >> in deed. okay. >> vice chair mandelman. >> one of the items where i don't love being on the rules committee. both of these candidates are excellent. my staff had the opportunity to talk to mr. crawford. very impressed. we haven't had the opportunity to talk directly to ms. milton but heard very good things about her so i could support either of these applicants. >> alright. of course there will be future opportunities on this body and other bodies

that work for our children and families, so i will make the difficult choice and make a motion to send mr. crawford with a residency waver to the full board with a positive recommendation. on that motion, mr. young a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion- [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> next on the agenda is item 4, hearing to consider aopponenting one member term ending october 8, 2024 and one member term ending october 8, 2025 to early childhood community oversight advisory committee two seats, four applicants. >> alright. here is one of those potential opportunities. why

don't we hear from the applicants. there are four of them. however, one of them is the only applicant for seat number 9, that is monique guidry not able to attend today but there is only one applicant for that position for which she is qualified and has a specific requirement that it is representative of the child care planning advisory council and so i let her know that we could hear the item today with her absent, which gives us the three remaining applicants for seat number 8, and we'll hear from them in the order they appear. cindy lopez-chastain, isabela hill, savitha moorthy that requires

a residency waver for seat number 8. is cindy lopez here? >> thank you, good morning everyone. thank you so much for permitting me to be online. i'm currently a speech therapist and working in practice today so i'm jumping on this call in between appointments. board of supervisors thank you for your consideration. i am wanting to state very briefly that my passion for early childhood education stems from my professional work of 20 years as a speech therapist in san francisco, but the deeper commitment is born and raised san franciscans myself, first generation immigrant family from el salvador-as a professional i have been deeply committed and in the groundwork

of early childhood supporting not only the children in their speech therapy work with me, but their families, colleagues and develop my own program in the connection in 2008. as response to working in the school systems and seeing a huge need for our spanish speaking families, our families of color and families of low income to receive and access services in the community in a timely manner and a way that worked for them. since 2008, i have done not only that work as a practice, but created teams, worked in countless child care programs, preschool centers, collaborated with non profit agencies, the school districts, the golden gate regional center to name a few and in that time i not only provided the direct service to

children and families and professional, but also developed different programs and different models to provide screenings for children, early intervention approaches and favorite part of the work is working inside the community to like the other colleagues said, to integrate our systems and stop working in silos, which has been something to the detriment of our community in early childhood. i come to you today just to share my passion and to want to bring my expertise, my commitment, my stories every day lessens i have from families and colleagues to bring to the table to work together with the city, with the board of supervisor, with committees to come up with solutions because i have been working pre-pandemic, during pandemic and now at this recovery stage of the pandemic with the

families that need it the most and i want to be able to come up with solutions that all integrate together. >> thank you. next we'll go to isabela hill. good morning. >> hello, supervisors. my name is isabela hill also a born and raised san franciscans and so exciting to be in the room and participating in the process. a early childhood educator 10 years and working in the classroom at c5 children school next door in the state buildsing. the call to action came during the pandemic when i was on unemployment and making more money then i had been as a full time teacher in the classroom. if up to me i would be a pree school teacher for the rest of my

lif, but that seems unrealistic in the current economic environment of our city. my career depends on creating a more sustainable future for educators in the city. this is such an inspiring and hopeful time to be involved in early (inaudible) move to universal preschool and i'm so in ah of the advocacy the city members of this committee have done to get us to this point. however, i believe i would be-if on the committee i would be the only one currently working in the classroom. as someone working in the classroom i can speak to lived experience how policies and funding impact educators and families. experience first hand the economic social cultural realties working and the first point of contact for children and caregivers in the community. in order to provide recommendations and expanding early childhood programs in

a way equitable high quality and sustainable i believe it is essential to have teachers in the field represented. my goal is advocate for policies that (inaudible) diverse qualified early childhood edge s who empower the communities they serve. thank you for your time. >> thank you ms. hill and thank you for your work and sorry that it is not compensated as it should be in this society, but we have tried i go back 20years and it was-we did child care plus and all sorts of things and yet it has fallen behind again. >> we very much appreciate the cares program that has been a tremendous boom to us and so excited to see what changes continue to be implemented. >> thank you. next we'll go to savitha moorthy. good morning. >> good morning. good

morning, rules committee. i'm so so honored to be here so thank you so much for having me here and giving me the opportunity to talk to you about my application and interest in serving on the early childhood citizen advisory oversight advisory committee. over the last 2 decades, my work has been in early childhood education. i have been a etch toer, researcher and non profit leader. my story and my history with early childhood education is personal. i wasn't able to attend college directly after high school so i took a vocational course. i worked entry level jobs thin service industry for 3 years and then facing burn-out in early 20's and took up a job as paraprofessional in a early childhood classroom and it changed my life. it lead me to complete my college degree, get

teaching credential. teached in the clasroom a decade and go on to grad school and work as a researcher and end up where i am today. because of my diverse experiences as a parent, as a educator, as researcher, non profit leader i'm familiar with the field of early childhood education, variety of learning context. the preschool classroom, head start agencies, family child care homes, family resource centers and parent of young child and because of this history this work is personal to me. the child is the center of my work and i'm passionate promoting high quality urldy childhood experiences and the urgency to do that for marginalized communities so all children arrive in kindergarten ready to learn. i'm the executive director of (inaudible) early learning. we are small but think mighty non profit working at the intersection of

social justice and early childhood education. we serve about 7,000 children and families in the city and county of san francisco so our programming is present in every preschool and transitional class room in san francisco unified. we serve all the major head start agencies, we partner with 101 family child care homes and several family resource centers. i bring this up because i don't live in san francisco and i need a residency waver but i assure through my work i'm closely connected to this community and care so deeply about it. i made it is a point and priority to be present and to build deep relationships with partners and families. i attend community meetings, community events, support programming and really hands on way. i'm seated on the child care planning advisory council through supervisor chan office and serve on the board of directors for the third street youth center and clinic lead by my wonderful

colleague joy jackson morgan and offer this as additional evidence of my commitment and connectiveness to the city of san francisco. thank you so--you're in a tough position because you have three amazing chan candidates to choose from so don't envy the decision you have to make but honored and humbled i got to be here today and tell about myself and work we do. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your presentation and thank you for your work and for your applying this morn ing. why don't we go to public comment mr. young? >> yes are. members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining in person should line up to speak at this time. for those listening remotely call 415-655-0001 enter id 24889 aket 77754 and press pound and pound again. once connected you need to press star 3 to enter the speaker

line. those in the queue please continue to wait until the system indicated you are unmuted and that is your queue to begin comment. there is nobody in the room for public comment at this time. just checking, and there is nobody on the telephone line for public comment at this time. >> okay. public comment is closed. this is a tough decision. i will note that there are no men on this body. there does not appear to be any-but could be wrong asian nor latinx representation on this body, which is 9 seats. nor does there appear to be any representation from somebody with current lived experience, so there you have it. comments from committee members? i'm at a loss with three perfectly qualified candidates.

supervisor chan. >> um-yeah, i think that it is a very challenging decision. i'm looking at purely-i always really just want to thank of course our d1 appointee, savitha moorthy for her service across. i think it is a great opportunity for someone like a educator like isabela hill and bringing the perspective educator to the body. it is a tough decision, but it is definitely great to have someone who is bilingual and understanding having cultural and language competency to one of the largest community in need of early childhood services in

the city and typically just from my experience with children council, that is a great need in a city like ours when child care cost is extremely high for immigrant and community that are mono lingual. we have some decision before us. i am probably in a space where leaning toward an educator like isabela hill for this reason because the lack of educators perspective while seeing that ms. moorthy has been involved in many other bodies related to child care already. that is probably where i'm leaning towards. >> i should note that ms. lopez chastain chimed in online, that

she too is a practicing educator in classrooms and home based work for the committee edification. vice chair mandelman. >> thank you chair peskin. i also have a very hard time with this decision. i will say i heard positive things about supervisor chan's appointee, mrs. moorthy. and beyond that i'm not sure i have a ton to contribute. >> alright. sure is great being chair, isn't it? colleagues, for a number of reasons i am going to suggest that we make a tough decision and i will

suggest cindy lopez chastain for seat 8 and monique guidry for seat 9. supervisor chan. >> i do want to actually speak on monique guidry for seat 9. i want to say i know her for a very long time, two decades now, and she has been dedicated in this work and she has alongside-her service does reside in district 7 alongside with former board president norman yee have done a lot of work around child care so i know her work speaks for itself and it is the reason why i did not question the fact that while she is not physically present and make a presentation i know her work a long time so more than happy to appoint her for seat 9. because again all three legally

qualified in outstanding candidates i think i respect chair peskin's decision for seat 8 with cindy lopez-chastain. thank you. >> again, as i said in the last item, there will be other and are more opportunities for your expertise and involvement. mr. clerk, please call the roll on that motion for item number 4. >> yes are. on the motion to appoint cindy lopez-chastain to seat 8 and monique guidry to seat 9- [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> next item for i don't know, 4, 5 time. >> item time ordinance

amending the administrative code to require the board supervisors approval of policy governing the funding acquisition and use of certain law enforcement equipment consistent with the criteria set forth in state law and approving the police department use of equipment policy. >> i want to thank you and public and police department for your patience as we heard this repeatedly. the good news is the department has evolved their ab481 military equipment policies largely in line with the comments that i made a couple weeks ago . i don't know if i'm the only one, but i generally delve into these things on sunday evening and by the time i delve through the entire grid that the police department provided us late last

week, maybe friday or so, it was like 10 o'clock and i thought too late to call the pd and start negotiating. so, i want to make some comments based on the responses and i think we are all in receipt of this fine good work the department for laying it all out and you can see who made the suggestion, which is largely me. some from the pd, and you can see that some of them were accepted in whole and some accepted in part and some declined in whole. but a lot of progress, and this is a first time that any of us are doing this. i actually noted that

this is a law that was sponsored by our now city attorney and former state assembly member david chu so if we want legislative intent we can walk down the hall and find out first person. with that, what i like to do is just go through some thoughts that i jotted down last night too late to call and then i have arranged for a meeting between myself and the department on wednesday morning to discuss these at length and then hopefully we can finally, we are past the 180 day deadline but we are not the only in the state of california to be wrestling with this. so, in order that they

appear on this-i note that as it relates to robots, the-i asked a question at a previous meeting whether or not robots could be used for deadly force. the department has responded that yes, they can under prescribed limited circumstances, so i think that is a question for us relative to ab481 whether or not we agree with that, so we can-that's something-this would be a good opportunity because we cannot talk about this off-line, if you have any sentiments as to that you might want to express them during the course of this meeting. there was relative-this is r3 page number 5. whether or not it should be command staff which is what i

recommended the department suggested commissioned officers which are lieutenant or above. i note that oakland i believe in their policy they are a little ahead of us, landed i think on command staff could only authorize deployment in these instances. something to think about and discuss. as to the bear cat, i guess the question that i was left with is, really defining what is a high risk tactical situation. i think we all have a sense of it, but it is not for the sake of the policy defined. obviously i think we all want

de-escalation when ever and where ever policy. i think the policy speaks to the fact that de-escalation is deemed to be futile, but anyway that's some food for thought. jumping all the way to my favorite device, the l rad. it's actually you included language which i appreciate that said it would not be used for crowd control, and so i think that in authorized use we should say that isn't a authorized use because this-i just restating what you guys were saying, but we can figure that out wednesday. and by the way, there also is and not yet looked into

this another new california law, i think ab48 we need to look at in light of l-rad. we can talk about that further on wednesday. jumping to specialized fire arms. i think the city attorney said that can be deleted in entirety or not. that is a policy call for us. any thoughts that colleagues have as to whether or not we want to delete that, speak now. that does not mean you need to forever hold your piece. but it is a place where we have a opportunity again to emphasize and speak to de-escalation if it is in the policy whereas, if we make the line call say and it is not in the policy those words don't is a place. i lean towards keeping it in the policy, which is our

call. jumping to r24, i are think we have ab48 questions, which we need to get our arms around and figure out. r26, i just have some questions about destruction of property as it relates to the definition of exigent circumstances. i am reluctant to -unless it is better defined say that destruction of property could trigger . i mean, if a person is smashing a window which is not good, i

don't know that it's okay to shoot them, but i'm not saying you would do that, i'm saying the way destruction of property is listed in here gives me pause. >> we (inaudible) rise to hostile crowds where barricades are being broken, vehicles broken and buses taken over, things lit on fire. talking large destruction of property. >> i think if we say that mass scale-we saw what happened in the nation capital with barricades and destruction of property so i get it so maybe this requires language tweaking. then, the-i think this gets me pretty much maybe through it. the restocking at $10 million which happens

to be the section 9.118 threshold where you have to come anyway, we need to discuss that. and then i think ab481 specifically does require and i put the language in and you guys took it out, that it has to identify an independent oversight body. i identify the board of supervisors which seemed to be for ab481 was pointing. i think it has to identify, i think that is clear in the law so don't think-we can have a different oversight agency, but i think you can't strike that language is the way i read the law. not an attorney. >> we are talking restocking section? >> no, this is r28. >> i can- >> complaints and

sanction. police commission is fold under to that in terms of compliance of member compliance. police commission is already folded into any discipline action along with the chief, so if we are talking about compliance with the government codes, 771d i believe, i think we already acknowledge the board of supervisors would be that governing body. >> okay, if you can show me where, maybe we are good. >> we added a section at the last page, page 20. >> page 20. >> essentially folded it into the annual report. not the compliance section, which just says it is the board of supervisors within their purview to oversee compliance of that government code section. >> we can quival about this. i see section

6, i still don't think it has the magic words of who is is the ultimate oversight authority, but-we can also talk to council about whether i'm right or not in the reading of ab481. or i can just go ask david chu. amazing that david chu was able to get this passed in assembly but automated speed enforcement still can't be passed. this isn't a comment on the pd, this is amount comment on the state legislator. i can't figure out the state legislature but what do i know i'm been a city council member for the last 20 years. that is--i

reserve my right to bring up anything else wednesday but that is it at a high level and colleagues if you want to add, subtract, go for it. if not why don't we open this item number 5 up to public comment? and to members of the public, i will include in the file as we did previously the most recent grid that the pd supplied to members of this committee on friday so peepical look a-people can look at it in the intervening week. >> i did post that earlier this morning into legistar. >> excellent. one last thing for me to give you. >> memberoffs the public who would like to speak and joining in person should line up to speak now a-for those listening remotely call

415-655-o001 enter id 248889877754 and pound and pound again. press star 3 to enter the speaker line. those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted and that is your queue to begin comment. we have person-in the room for public comment. you have two minutes for public comment. >> hi. my name is author cocha member of the san francisco friends meeting serving on the peace and social concern committee. we have a quaker meeting house on south 9th street, 65 south 9th street. so, i'm here to represent the meeting. asking the board to call for further amendment of the proposed military equipment policy. to fully define authorized use for all weapons, especially assault weapons. i object to assault weapons considered standard issue as well

as machine guns. i think they should be in the inventory and think they should be accounted for. we need to align receipt of annual reports and budgets. require transparency and restocking. note blank checks up to $10 million. that is a lot of money not to keep track of. as quaker pacifist i don't think the sfpd should have so many weapons of war. we are a city of peace, not military. i think the proposed policy is morally and ethically wrong. this policy does want safeguard the public welfare safety civil rights or civil liberties and ab481 requires governing bodies to only approve the use of the policy if it safeguard the public welfare safety civil rights and civil liberties. i visit a

friend in visitation valley a couple yires ago, one of the poorest neighborhoods in san francisco and witness willinary star armored vehicle making a (inaudible) shocking and out of proportion like it was different realty then other neighborhoods in san francisco. i was more afraid of the police then the poverty and crime that surrounding me. briefing devices should not be deployed against a person and only used- >> your speaker time elapsed. >> can i make one last statement? >> please wrap up. >> military equipment is more frequently deployed in low income black and brown communities meaning the risks impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized community. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you fl for your comments. any additional members of the public for comment on item 5? >> no additional parties thin room we can move to call in

phone number where we have 6 members in line. >> first speaker, please. >> can you hear me now? >> please proceed. >> great. david pillpel again. on this item, in yes victor did upload the department's submission this morning. that is great, but also in attachment 21 the committee packet should have today date and has last week. it is better for the police to have some of this equipment and not use it then to not have it and need it in the event of some event that requires it. that's where i fall on the acquisition or holding the equipment. my understanding is that this doesn't change what the police has, it just makes the list of that equipment

publicly transparent and extent govern its use in a way that did not exist before, so it is really more about transparency then additional pension militarization of the police. i hope the sheriff department policy pending before this committee and any other ab481 policy gets similar scrutiny to the police department's. thanks for listening. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> hi. this is jennifer (inaudible) work for the american friend service committee. calling to urge this committee to include assault rifles in this policy. the public deserves to know the fiscal impact of sfpd15 machine guns, 64 submachine

guns, 608 assault rifles (inaudible) use of assault rifles lead to deaths thin city including this year automatic fire weapons are indiscriminate. the public deserves to give input how such deadly weapons would be used and that is provided by ab481. i also urge this committee to consider setting the annual report receipts occur in the spring. the new law ab481 requires reporting on the total annual cost for each type of military equipment and that includes not just the acquisition cost but also personnel training maintenance and more. these are outlined. that means that sfpd needs to be able to answer questions that account for personnel cost especially around training and maintenance. these questions include things like how many personnel devoted on training for each weapon? what was the cost of the personnel time? how many hours devoted towards cleaning rifles and

guns? towards cleaning maintenance on every weapon that is described? were any of these questions done at overtime rate? by setting a due date for the annual report in the spring this will not only better align with the annual budget process for the city,b it will help sfpd to identify the changes it needs to take in the record keeping practices and work with a (inaudible) more able to fully deliver on the requirements. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> hello? >> hi, please proceed. >> hi. my name is john lensy pollen with the american friends service and my comment is very brief. the proposal from sfpd to

make a fully automatic machine gun and submachine guns a standard issue and therefore exempt from ab481 requirement for use policy and reporting on those weapons is totally unique in the state. there are many other departments and i should say american friends service committee has reviewed more then a hundred police department and sheriff policies for ab481 including their use of fire arms and whether they classify as assault weapons as fire arms. the vast majority more then 90 percent of police department and sheriff offices include assault weapons semi-automatic rifles in the use policy for ab481. some even say we consider this standard issue, but we in interest of

transparency will include this. there is one department where the legislative body governing body said you didn't include assault rifles, we want you to include it which is under ab481 part of the authority of the governing body to say okay, this does not include in ab481 by law but we want you to include it and san francisco has the ability to do that. on the issue of machine gun and submachine gun there are many departments that have such fire arms such weapons. none of them have classified as standard issue. every single department i'm aware of that has those type of fire arms included them in the ab481 policy. it is atrocious that this department would attempt to classify these weapons as standard issue and exclude them- >> thank you your time elapsed. thank you very much. can we have our next caller,

please? >> speaking for progressive labor party. hello everyone. let's cut to the chase. part -what are the police for? it isn't stop crime or protect us. (inaudible) the police kill us with impunity, bust down our doors, stop and search us, they break up our demonstrations, they spy on us, they are basically a hired killers to keep a tiny ruling class in power. now they want military weapons. why? well, millions are becoming homeless. our kids don't have enough food, schools are chaos or prisons, can't get health care, cant afford food or gas and now preparing for a war with russia and china that will get our social services. the police want military weapons because the bosses are

afraid of massive rebellion and they are right, we will rebel but we need it go beyond rebellion. we need a (inaudible) not have to fight the same battles over and over and over again. elections will not do it. we can do it. all of these fights today against militarizing the police against school closings, against evictions they can bring us together and teach us how to fight. let's keep our eye on the prize driving out the bosses with working class revolution. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> good morning, this is regina (inaudible) women international league for peace and freedom. (inaudible) have already talked

about issues i was going to raise, so i'm going to focus on a couple other things. one is i want to thank chair peskin for continuing this item. continuing to dialogue with the police department to get more specific information into this policy and the board is going to make policy decisions that are important to this ordinance. we need more definitions of the [audio cut out] >> (inaudible) >> available to us early enough so we actually could review that and i fallowed very easily the comments made by chair peskin, because of that document. i will look forward to seeing the responses after wednesday's meeting

with the police department. i would like you to ask the police department about two other items. one, is there $10 million figure. as you mentioned that is kind of standard so it really needs to be a smaller amount. i still think it is a great idea to have a earlier report along the budget cycle starting in beginning of the year up to march, so that we have early indication how this policy is playing out in terms of a annual report. so, those are basically the things-you have my written comments for more detail. appreciate that you are taking the time to make sure that we get a policy that is the one that the city deserves as a city of peace and that i know we are past the deadline, but it is more important to get it right. thank you. >> thank you.

>> can we have our next caller, please? >> hello, my name is paul riley, and i live in san francisco in district 10. i represent all of us (inaudible) i ask the board of supervisors to call for further amendment of the proposed military equipment use policy (inaudible) authorized use for all weapons especially assault weapons. these weapons have historically been misused. i ask the board to examine the continuous sequence of policies which lead to the assault upon unknowing african american community. restrictive covenants make a heavy presence of police in the neighborhood to make

sure people stayed within these boundaries and this goes all the way back to the killing of matthew johnson, a 15 year old unarmed boy in hunters point. i heard the supervisor mention destruction of property, (inaudible) was murdered. the mayor at the time john selly authorized state (inaudible) violence against the entire community using military equipment. i was not alive at the time but grew up in the neighborhood with tanks driving around, being used against the community. i grew up in a neighborhood where ar15 were pointed at me telling me to go inside the house. i please ask the board to look at this matter because it will impact the entire community which i live in. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller?

>> yes. good morning. tracey (inaudible) from open privacy from the media alliance. good morning again and thanks for the work that has been done so so far. i wanted to express three quick concerns. number one, the restocking fee at $10 million, that is a large amount of money, and potentially could represent a significant increase in volume, so we would ask you to look at lowering that number. secondly, assembly 48 which passed in the same year as assembly bill 481, restricts the use of chemical weapons, flash bags, bean bags and those kind of things in crowd control. it significantly restricts it and we ask you to integrate these policies with

ab48. lastly, i believe that currently we have robots authorized for deadly force which could be used to remote control kill someone. this is what oakland considered and sort of stepped back from, because it is really scary, and i would ask that san francisco also consider stepping back from having that kind of equipment authorized for basically remote control killing. so, thank you and have a good day. >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> hello. my name is (inaudible) buller. i'm a community activist of many years. i pointed out and read the law if

enforcement equipment use of policy and recommended edits of ab481 and interested to heard the comments made before me and i want to say i appreciate greatly the hard work that supervisor peskin has done in dealing with what is put before him. i want to say that i find this a bazaar way to deal with our fear of the other. we at present in our community and our nation are faced with a lot of unrest and to over-react to that by way of allowing expenditures to the police department that can result in serious harm to members of our public is really

unthinkable. so, i (inaudible) i support the use of the funds used to supply and to -use of any military weapons for-instead use for social services and unmet community needs. furthermore, i would like the proud city of san francisco to send a message to the federal government legislators, the weapons manufacturers, u.s. military, the police force itself and general public that we do not want or need military weapons to handle our civic affairs and prefer to use the funds for police training in community relations, non violent interventions and management of law

enforcement and in addition meeting community needs. thank you for your attention and i wish you all great luck. >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please? >> (inaudible) my god. so, first off, we always have a bunch of people that don't live in san francisco that want to come on and advocate for what is going on in san francisco. you need to stop that. number 2, the police-there are lot of good police officers. i had seen them last night (inaudible) deal compassionately and not with assault rifles. (inaudible) when you are saying that the criminals are taking over the streets, you need to look at why are we not holding other agencies account able for the

work they are supposed to be doing? i think there should be a medium in there for assault rifles and at the same time held accountable. the (inaudible) it ends up here in our community. i mean, they have all these stuff up there and on january 6 when they had the insurrection (inaudible) because they were a lot of white people. one person got shot. (inaudible) black lives matter and they were doing peaceful protest so therefore we can't take away everything from the police to do their job. at the same time you can't give them everything- [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] for the work they are supposed to be doing (inaudible) their job

for mental health to call the police and then do it in a compassionate way. we need to find a medium and stop allowing people that do not live in san francisco, white people that dont live in san francisco to speak up for san francisco when it is not for us in the first place. it will cause more harm to our communities (inaudible) that's my two cents of the whole thing- >> your time elapsed. thank you. that was our last caller for public comment. >> okay. public comment for today at least is closed, and colleagues as previously discussed i make a motion to continue this to our meeting of november 14. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on the motion to continue the matter to november 14- [roll call] motion passes without

objection. >> alright. next and last item please. see you wednesday. >> next on the agenda is item 6. ordinance amending the campaign governmental conduct code to update the conflict of interest code form 700 filing requirements by adding deleting and changing titles of certain designated officials and employees to reflect organizational and staffing changes and by refining disclosure requirements for certain designated officials and employees. >> alright. we have been asked by the department of human resources that is still meeting and conferring to continue this item to the 12 day of december, but meanwhile, we have a few amendments to discuss that i will pull up here in a minute. i got from president walton's

office that seem to be relatively de minimis in nature but require continuance anyway. added 1 position to city attorney office restoring the two disclosures from fine art museum and city administrator. adding the refuse rate board to (inaudible) and a new section 3.1-397 as the-i have a couple questions we can figure out between now and december 12 as it relates to the refuse rate administrator on page 17, which sets the rate administrator-this was at the suggestion of the controller as a disclosure category 2, and i think we should think about whether that should be a

disclosure category 1. the way it is currently written, the refuse rate administrator when that individual is retained by the city pursuant to proposition f of last june, would only have to disclose their investments and positions in a business entity which is engaged in the refuse business in san francisco. i found that maybe to be too narrow. to the extent that there is every competition in this arena as it relates to refuse other then by recumbent recology provider it seems to me this individual should have to disclose any relations

with any refuse business regardless whether they have business in san francisco or not. so, madam deputy city attorney, i assume we can take this up with the controller and deal with it in the interim. >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. yes the controller office has recommended the designation and they can explain why they went with the 2 instead of 1. as to the issue about disclosures related to interest outside the jurisdiction, this is drafted to conform or operationalize the political format and that state law requires disclosures of financial interest within a jurisdiction. so, all of disclosures respect within the jurisdiction. that is why this is drafted the way it is. the board could certainly decide this is a position that should make additional disclosures above and beyond those required by state law, but that

would probably need to be codified elsewhere. >> alright. thank you for that. the only other thing which is super nit-picky that i'll add is just i never heard-this is page 18 of a director of public space regeneration. what is that? this is not exactly rhetorical question, but i wouldn't mind hearing from the economic workforce development office what that is. there is some other goofy new titles. deputy director of community economic development invest in neighborhoods. i guess maybe we knew that, but public space regeneration, what is that? are there any members of the public who like to testify on this item? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and

joining in person can line up to speak at this time. for those listening remotely call 415-655-0001 and enter id24889 aket 77754 and pound and pound again. once connected you need to press 3 to enter the speaker line. for those already in the queue please continue to wait until the system indicates you run muted and that is your queue to begin comments. there are no members in the room. we have one caller on the line for public comment at this time. can we have our first caller? >> great. david pillpel, one of my favorite tasks to go through. throughout i think generic titles like manager 1, manager 3 can be more specific. some departments have that, others don't. i don't understand why a number of policy and communication positions are category 1 and not category 2

where that exists. it seems they would have limited ability to make decisions that implicate coi issues. very specific airport, page 4-11 i would use divisions because the airport is large and it is difficult to figure which positions if they are not set up by division. the controller, page 18, i don't understand the reference to these prop q whatever it is instigator positions. i think that could be better explained or more specific. dem page 19, i would use divisions. there are too many abbreviations with respect to dem about (inaudible) some of us know what that means but it is not particularly clear. page 22, 918 may not deed division since it is so small and there is reference to new positions on one line i think could be struck. dhr, page 34,

lines 10 and 11, again, prop q positions. puc, page 39 to 50. again, i would use divisions. this is proposing to collapse all that. saf, page 56-58. i don'ts think the lower level positions need to be category 1. that seems inconsistent with other departments and perhaps inconsistent with their responsibilitiess and finally, ocii page 59, line 2, i believe the sub-a in parenthesis at the beginning can be deleted. if you want to advise if there is someone i should follow up with on these specifics i'm happy to communicate that and look forward to the further hearing on this in december. thanks. >> thank you. any other members for this item? >> no additional callers for this matter. >> alright. to the speaker, if you want to put that in an e-mail and send it to

the clerk of this committee, he will dissiminate it to the appropriate parties. public comment is closed. i will make a motion to adopt the amendments circulated by nattily gee on behalf of president walton and make one other additional amendment at page 17 at section 3.1-195 to change the refuse rate administrator from disclosure category 2 to disclosure category 1. and on that double amendment or two amendments in one, a roll call please. >> on the motion to amend-- [roll call]

>> motion passes without objection. >> alright. and then depending on what the voters decide tomorrow, we may or may not on december 12 take out the reference to the department of streets and sanitation, but we'll figure that out tomorrow night or december 12, which ever comes first. i make a motion to continue the item as amended to december 12. >> motion to continue to december 12- [roll call] >> the motion passes without objection. >> we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]

>> all right. welcome commissioners. staff and the public to november first issue 2022 meeting of the san francisco health commission. president bernal could not be here i have the privilege of chairing the meeting and secretary morewitz will you take the roll? >> hi. call the roll commissioner green.