Skip to main content

tv   BOS Rules Committeee  SFGTV  August 3, 2022 5:00am-8:31am PDT

5:00 am
>> good morning and welcome to rules committee of san francisco board of supervisors for today monday july 25. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined to right by mandelman and to my left by committee member supervisor connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. any announcement snz >> the board is convening high bred meetings to allow inperson attenance and public comment still providing remote
5:01 am
access via telephoneism the board recognize the equitable public access is essential and taken public comment as follows: first public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. those attended in person are allowed to speak first and then we'll take those who are waiting on the telephone line. for those watching channel 26, 28, 78 or 99, and sfgovtv the call in number is streaming across the screen. the number is 415-655-0001. then enter meeting id24950 ath 03athy 49 then press and pound again. connected you hear a etmooing discussion but you are muted squl and listening moted. when item comes up those joining in person should line up to speak and on the telephone dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on the telephone please remember to turn down the tv and
5:02 am
all listening devices. as indicated we will take pubplic comment in person and go to the telephone linem you may submit in writing e-mail to myself the rules committee clerk at (inaudible) at it will be forwarded to the supervisor jz included as part of the official file. you may also send written comment by u.s. postal service to our office at city hall carlton b goodlett place, #r5078 244 san francisco california 94102. arrangements have bip made to chinese interpretation and i would like to differ to agnus (inaudible) to provide announcement in
5:03 am
chinese. >> [speaking chinese]
5:04 am
5:05 am
thank you mr. clerk. >> that completes our initial announcements. >> thank you. could you please read the first item? >> yes, item 1 motion finding tiffany carter proposal to apply for grants and contracts administered by it office of economic work force development and seek assistance from oewd related to the growth of the restaurant she owns and benefit the mission of sf block wall street and black wall street foundation are not incompatible with the activities of the small business commission she is a member subject to conditions. >> at the last meeting we made a slight amendment which required a one week
5:06 am
continuance, otherwise nothing changed and i do not have additional amendments. any members of the public when would like to testify on item number 1? >> yes, members of the public who wish to speak and in person can line up to speak at this time. for thoest listening remote ly call 415-655-0001 and enter meeting idea and pound and pound again. once connected press star 3 to enter the speaker line. those in the queue please wait until the system states you run muted. we do not have anyone in person. we have two people on the line for public comment. can we have the first caller, please? >> so, supervisors the last time i spoke on this
5:07 am
item and the only thing i have to say is that, the candidate when i attendeded the small business commission seems not to be very informed on what really is happening in our city, and i am literally-this candidate has been chosen because of her close connection to the politician. maybe the mayor or some other politician and we need better candidates on the small business commission to represent san franciscans. i understand that thes convoluted (inaudible) determination regarding statement of activities is something that i
5:08 am
haven't seen before, and it is such (inaudible) muddy the waters. thank you very much. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> next item. sorry about that. >> sorry, we did not-could you repeat yourself please? okay. they want to speak on a different item. that was the last of the public commenters. >> alright, public comment on item 1 is closed and colleagues if no comments or objections i will make a motion to send this item with
5:09 am
recommendation to the full board. on that motion please. [roll call] >> the motion passes to recommend the item as committee report. >> next item, please. >> next on the agenda is item 2 ordinance amending the administrative campaign government code to establish early childhood successor to the office of early education and first 5 san francisco (inaudible) successor to office of early care and education and update the responsibilities of the children family first commission. >> thank you mr. young. we are joined by supervisor melgar. the cosponsor of this piece of legislation that is sponsored by mayor breed.
5:10 am
supervisor melgar, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much chair peskin and colleagues for hearing this item. to formally establish the department of early childhood, as you know this department for posed and formed through the budget process last year to hurj the office of early care and education with the first 5 commission. this new department will be tasked with having a unified vision,ition mission, strategy and outcome framework to serve the youngest residents 0-to 5 and families. san francisco has made monumental strides advancing our goals for universal early care and education, especially in the passage of the early education for all initiative known as baby prop c to bring dedicated to dollars to clear long waiting list,
5:11 am
uplift wages for the dedicated educators and build a lasting infrastructure hope some day means every young child will have access without the family having to jump through hoops and waiting for years sometimes for their child to get a slot. we need to make sure that this funding fulfills the initant of voters. the first 5 commission through state funding also plays a crucial role in supporting families of young children through parentsing courses, family resource centers and early intervention services that pretty much guarantees they will be successful later. the legislation provides guidance on the governance of the new department, the first 5 commission will retain a state mandated duties and will continue to oversee state tax dollars to support families and young children. they
5:12 am
will not expand the authority under prop c funds but will be able to provide recommendations. the legislation also einvolves the existing advizry committee to early childhood over site and advisory committee to offer guidance to the department the mayor the board of supervisor on the strategic plan and provide recommendations on the budget and spending plan. i feel this effort is a visionary step having a combined comprehensive departmental leverage maximize our resources. and also be bold where the state and federal government have failed us. the first 5 years of a child's life determine their long-term outcomes so it is critical to focus dedicated attention to the population. i want to thank mayor breed and her team for their forward thinking and proposal to establish this dedicated department and for their collaboration
5:13 am
throughout the process. i also want to thank the current director of the office of early care and education and (inaudible) and her staff jenny lam for collaboration and diverse coalition of stakeholders including early care educators and advocates and the first 5 community who have been actively engaged in this process. given this is a new department, i expect us to have many more discussions about it had way to support the staff the mission and critically maximize the impact of limited funding we have reserved to support children 0-5. there are still outstanding questions we need to address but this is all natural as part of any merger. i think we-there will be a more aligned strategic plan then the one we started and we still need to flush out more details in the coming year. we also will
5:14 am
need trailing legislation to address some emerging needs and goals to insure the success of this department and families we serve. this ordinance today is a start. it will establish some foundational guidelines about the governance structure and oversight of the newly form ed department and designate specific roles for the first 5 commission and oversight and advisory committee that will help guide the department. i do have some miner non-substantive amendment frz the committee to consider proposed by the clerk of the board per our board rules. these changes are under section 86.3, membership of the organization of the san francisco children and family first commission on page 10 line 12 adding the line-the commission meet at least 4 times each calendar year. on page 12 linegs to 11 adding the line, any member in seats 3 and
5:15 am
5 through 9 who fail to attend at least half the meetings held in a calendar year shall be deemed to have resigned from the commission. page 13, 6, department provide administrative support to the commission. and under article 13, early childhood community oversight and advisory committee, section 5.13-3 membership and organization on page 16 line 20, add after any success iser to the division recommended by the superintendent of schools to the mayor. adding to the mayor. with that, through the chair, i believe that we have a brief presentation from the director ingred (inaudible) who is joining us this morning on herbirthday. happy birthday. don't mean to embarrass you but
5:16 am
proud of you and thank you for being here. >> thank you for your leadership on this. it has been an honor working with you and office staff. it is a pleasure. thank you also to the mayor who has also started us on this path several years ago. seeing lots of things that could be the potential for early childhood and so our presentation today is going to be a lot of the things you just mentioned supervisor melgar so good morning supervisor peskin, chan and mendelman and thank you for indulgeing us to provide a overview of what the department of early childhood is capable of doing and also being able to see the beyond. knowing that this again has started many years ago and finally we are here. after a long awaited process. so, the san francisco department of early childhood and i
5:17 am
believe we have presentation slides. >> they are being displayed. you can see it on it screen. >> okay. great. the san francisco department of early y childhood is like i said and how supervisor melgar krirebed a culmination of many things and san franciscans also recognizing the best way to insure strong future for our city is for our youngest children to have a early childhood experience that positively contribute to the growth learning and wellbeing and this is at the core of what we will be doing. next slide. this process started many many decades ago. actually, when the state of california put a proposition which was to tax tobacco. to dedicate funding berth to 5 in the state of california. and every county
5:18 am
was to receive a allocation from that. san francisco as the city and county receives a tax allocation from this tobacco tax bill and it is administered through the children and families commission. in 2004 several years ago san francisco lead the way in being able to establish the first universal preschool system in the whole not only state of california but the nation and so we started again this road many many years ago. in 2013 late mayor lee established the office of early care and education being able to bring together the resources with the vision for every child to be able to have access to early care and education in the city. next slide. we were not done yet. in 2018, baby prop c passed which was just incredible. this is the most i would say ambitious opportunity that the city has had
5:19 am
and because of that mayor london breed asked not only first 5 but oece to come together and align and coordinate. again with the vision of being able to share these resources with children and families all throughout the city. but making it much better. much better coordinated, much better access and so in 2022 this is what we are doing. first 5 united to become department of early childhood, also known as dec. where we are integrating not only the state but also coordinated municipalities funded system of service and support that strengthen families and improve child out comes. next slide. and without saying this is a unprecedented opportunity to invest and build a robust early childhood system on a scale that has not been seen anywhere else in the nation. we are leading the nation with bold
5:20 am
vision but also with a system and structure that supports it. next slide. and that's why the ordinance has core principals. one not only does it establish department of early childhood that focus very specific on birth to 5 that we bring together the state the is san francisco children and family commission with membership powers and duty as well as citizen advisory committee with membership and duties having a structure and system to do this and also a plan. strategic plan that brings together the vision in a way that creates the strategies to be able to expand opportunities not only for these policy bodies to come together, but also with parents and the community to insure that we have strategies investment that drive towards impact. next slide. and our role as the department of early childhood it really is about
5:21 am
not only investing but also reviewing and evaluating what we invest in. and we also have to listen to the families, parents throughout san francisco which we have been doing and as we do this making sure that we are advancing equity as part of the core. next slide. part of our strategic planning has been to engage the community in many different ways, many many meetings have had. we invest and partner with early child professionals. we are doing this as part of the values making sure we have the public and community engaged. that is why we continue with the advisory structures and able to see a representation of cross section of childhood professions and applying lessens learned from the last 15 plus years of the early-the universal preschool ist ism in san francisco. as we build our system for a universal
5:22 am
system for all children. next slide. all most done. and as the department of early childhood, this is where everything comes to light, especially for children and families in the city. we want to make sure we are equitable by prioritizing those children especially with the greatest need and for this opportunity. we want to be collective bringing together the city diverse services and resources. especially to uplifting family voices, creating a community all the adults who care for and about young children. >> and as supervisor melgar mentioned, this is about being comprehensive taoism we # -- too, we want to be sure we are taking the whole family approach and for all members who live in the communities and people who care for them and for making sure there are no gaps and
5:23 am
missing links in families and supporting every system of care. >> one of the major ambitious goals is to create a universal system and part of that to make sure that we are also taking lessons learned. we already have a universal preschool system that guarantees pretty much a preschool for every child. we have especially for latino and african american children, we have 92% of preschool participation. that took several years to do but we have been able to do it and we are going to be applying the same lessons as we build this universal system from birth to 5. as we do this, we have to make sure that we make sure that children who are receiving this care is of the highest quality. that means that we have to support programs and educaors
5:24 am
to deliver the best possible care to children and we are implementing the stallary to $21 an hour and have over $1 million for recruitment and benefits for teacher. we know this is a national crisis and san francisco is not an anomaly. and in the coming years, low and moderate income families will have unparalleled access to affordable childhood programming by making those investments very visiby and providing market rates and child wednesday and early intervention and this is very apparent in our spending plan and clear in our
5:25 am
investments and identifying and investing children's healthy development. >> >> we are supporting the families and a bright and better future for all of our families. >> thank you. we would be remiss if not acknowledging supervisor melgar's predecessor norman 83.
5:26 am
there were mayor's along the way but not supervisor yee and i wanted to publicly thank and acknowledge him. >> supervisor melgar. >> thank you, supervisor peskin, i appreciate that. former supervisor yee has been active in advising us, challenging us and i want to acknowledge not only did he move the needle >> he is very much involved. thank you so much, director. i see some folks in the audience here who will probably give public comment, but i wanted to acknowledge the folks from an our parent voices and the alliance and those who have been
5:27 am
instrumental in helping us think through language for this ordinance anti-get it over the finish line. thank you so much, chair peskin and we can go to public comment. thank you. >> >>supervisor aaron peskin: thank you. why don't we open to public comment. >> supervisor # mendleman, >> thank you, i'm very excited for all the work and to director and ms. lamb and the providers and would like to be added as a cosponsor. all right. now why don't we go to public comment on item no. 2.
5:28 am
let's go to your right and my left. yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining us are invited to join us. please call (415) 655-0001 enter the meeting no. 2950080. >> once connected you need to press star 2. >> that are be your queue to begin your comment. >> we have our first speaker. public speaker: good morning, my name is -- the director of early learning. our organization of the children and families and educators of family system and
5:29 am
dozens of # community based organization and would like to thank you and mayor london breed for this important piece of legislation. as you know as you mentioned the years 0-5 are critical in a child's life and the quantity and experiences that children encounter during this time is an important part of early start to education and a two generation approach that provides care and learning to children while also expanding the capacity of their lives is very much a key component to early childhood. we are very dedicated to focus in this area and streamline to families and
5:30 am
children and this brings together san francisco's resources to early education to address the needs of young children and their lives. as part of the early childhood community in san francisco, our organization is excited to continue collaborating with the department of early childhood and the board of supervisors to create and sustain the vibrant responsive early childhood ecosystem that our early childhood and families need. thank you for continued work in the lives of children of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. >> public speaker: my name is rachel church and my public story was published in san francisco in 2019 by abraham
5:31 am
rodriguez in the online newspaper. due to my severe ptsd and anxiety condition i was unable to work and i lived with my daughter in a motor home and moved to a trailer and where i # waited for my children's proxy voucher for 8 months. i was so grateful when my voucher was ready and my baby could learn and i can get a job where it would not contribute to my anxiety. where this is said and we are concerned about accountability transparency decision making and which pot of money funds which program. we want to make sure that baby
5:32 am
prop c does not support other funded programs under dys. remember how child care got choked and fizzled out under dcys. that historical fact is rel -- very relevant. now they are trying to take out other programs. thank god you are able to pass this in the city to support this program like we have in the district. i'm so grateful to see you all today. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. public speaker: >> thank you, rachel. my name is maria, the organizer of parent voices. this morning i got a call from a parent while i was driving here that said maria, i have a coworker and she
5:33 am
is a city employee but she doesn't have enough money to pay for child care. i thought you had a baby sitter. i hope she's going to call soon because even though she works for the city, she doesn't make enough. i'm really thankful for this and eece to become the ehc. i hope this will streamline the early care service for education. so we support supervisor melgar and mayor and supervisor norman yee for getting us here. and everybody who worked for this. but the law is only as good at the people implementing it. to me it's when the rubber hits the road that we get the results. so, but this lays a good foundation. you see this is accountable and transparency and has integrity. our children are
5:34 am
here deserve the best from us and depend on us and we should follow this contination of care whether their parents are staying home, children should not depend on this for their parents. it's very important to say every time when we have an opportunity to do so. babies and families first fund is broader than just funding and we hope that we look at child care that way. our supply has edwin -- dwindled during the campaign and i hope you support this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> public speaker: good morning, thank you very much for your time. thanks to all the people that
5:35 am
got us here and a special shout out to supervisor melgar because she's in the trenches with us and i appreciate that very much. my name is june bug and without child care i would not be able to be here and without child care, i wouldn't be able to go to college and get therapy and better myself and have economic stability for my family. child care is absolutely a must. however, child care costs so much, i can't afford it. i'm very thankful for child care subsidy. i'm also very thankful for the parent voices because parent voices values parents like me and considers us and see's us as experts. i want to say this is a great collaboration of coming down the pipeline here with the office of early childhood education and first five coming
5:36 am
together as a collaboration and to the department of early childhood. my concern is i want to be sure that me as a parent and a lot of parents who are here in san francisco are experts because we live and breathe this issue of child care that we are able to continue that part of decision making. once again, this is a great collaboration. i want to be sure that i am part that have decision making and there is accountability. and i think together as a team we can do really good for our children in san francisco because remember child care keeps children learning and parents earning. thank you. >> thank you. >> are there any other speakers in the chambers, please come forward? >> public speaker: good morning,
5:37 am
members of the committee. we are excited and thank you again supervisor melgar for your leadership in always being a champion for children and families. that will be the realization of diverse voices advocating for supporting the needs of our youngest children and their families. we know how critical years are important for a youngster's success and for leaders in the country. the funded solely part for the children locally and statewide. and that will center the children and families and the 2019 california assembly recently written report that early childhood education must be accessible to families and that must be a generation policy as the well-being of children
5:38 am
inexplicably to our children and if families succeed, children will succeed. the families and the commitment to ensuring the programs across education and health and families will endure long lasting. thank you for the opportunity to testify here. >> thank you. are there any other speakers, please lineup to my left and your right. otherwise this is the last opportunity to speak. >> thank you, i'm grateful for the work that supervisor yee started and as well as supervisor melgar and the office for early care and education.
5:39 am
my name is jenny pearlman, from the lead agency for the family resource center base start as well as the family resource center and alliance. family resource center supports tens of thousands of children each year and a system of care for their children and families. voices of the families, we talked about what's the voice of families that are integrated for the src services that are in parent services and active committees and new citywide service as our council and this offers an innovative way to ensure our best outcomes to our youngest children to holistic year around support and services to families to create family stability and
5:40 am
resilience. the two generation approach that dec offers is essential to reach those outcomes we hope for our youngest children. we know and research shows that children are best able to thrive and reach their full potential when they are part of a stable family situation. with caregivers who are able to give them all of the emotional support and physical and cognitive support that happen outside of equal time. children come to their early education experiences with all the experiences of their home life. in 2018, the voters passed ab propc which hold the holistic care in the system and this will only be realized through an educational approach that the department offers. we are
5:41 am
grateful for coming together for this ordinance and support it. thank you. >> thank you. seeing no other members of the public in chambers, mr. young, why don't we see who we have for remote public testimony on this item. >> we have 12 people on the line for public comment. can we have our first caller, please? >> public speaker: hi, my name is gina, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. i want to thank the mayor, supervisors melgar and all the supervisors for your support and the community input as well. it's really important that the community is involved in these sort of decisions. early childhood education system is very complex and the creation of this new department brings
5:42 am
together san francisco's ece resources to address the critical needs of san francisco's youngest and those who care for them. the development of this department is a crucial first step and it's through a great amount of work to be done to meet the needs of the children and families in san francisco. while we work with melgar's office to oversight committee processes in this ordinances are a success, is dependent on greater transparency and working closely with this department. as part of this community, i'm dedicated to the collaboration with board of supervisors and department of early care and education to create to responsive system that our families, children and educaors need and deserve and that we are
5:43 am
going to get the support needed in san francisco. thank you. >> public speaker: good morning, everyone. i'm a senior public policy at children's council and one of the cochairs of policy and legislation. i first want to start off with thanking mayor breed and of course former board president norman yee for your
5:44 am
leadership. >> and to connect families with high quality and wrap around support from the whole child and whole family model with play groups and workshops and the library where we provide families with books and toys and family support. in the formation we have also remembered the importance of r &
5:45 am
r and how they are doing a lot for the families. the system is very complex as mentioned and alongside i know children of san francisco will continue to be a community partner and ally for the city to provide the necessary data and resources to make thoughtful decisions. >> we have quite a bit of work to do as is expected with the merger and we look forward to continuing to have a community voice to be sure we have a really thoughtful easy system. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> public speaker: good morning chair. pride is a member of the children resource alliance, a network of approximately 40 local family organizations. that alliance serves tens of thousands of children in san francisco. this supports the
5:46 am
early childhood education and city's legacy for the children and their families. the american family child and youth center for family independence, family resilience and healthy child development. programs such as these are vital parts of the city's child serving systems especially families of color with minimum financial resources and this is important for children in early years to achieve this outcome. this is a better position for san francisco and early childhood experiences across this family support. this offers a timely opportunity to leverage the expertise in
5:47 am
families and early childhood and connected to children and families. the alliance are eager to partner with you on this coordinated two generation approach. thank you. >> thank you. next caller. >> public speaker: hi. i'm with the network organization for the center for alliance. the resource centers are a vital part working along our educators working in our home and communities. we are excited about this new city department to bring more holistically to create one streamline community serving that meets the children 0-5 and their families. the best practices make clear
5:48 am
that child well-being includes family well-being and the two generation approach that supports the needs of young children and their families. the innovative two general education approach will show the children are supported emotionally and cognitively which is stable for families to provide quality of care. in 2018, voters passed ab -- in the system. the creation of the ec will help realize the goal with this historic investment with the system to champion our young children and their families and to be front and center in a policy decision. 3/4 of voters say that this is what it's like to be a family in san francisco. this is the unique opportunity to reimagine how the city supports children and families.
5:49 am
thank you very much for your time. . we hope to continue this approach to improve the lives of our children. >> >> next speaker? public speaker: supervisors, i would like to talk and would like to hear from the hundreds of immigrants who are taken care of in the many childhood care centers all over san francisco. and while you can establish any
5:50 am
type of department, we need first and foremost to do our needs assessment. in the latin community you have children coming from all over, in guatemala, el salvador and each of the countries from where these children come from, need special attention. linked to behavioral sciences. so ucsf and proposition c should go into more in doing a needs assessment. all this larger entities can speak in general terms, but you need to zero in on those
5:51 am
children inference to hr 5. that's the important thing to do. not the parents or the children who can afford child care. $50, $75 a day, whatever it takes. many of them preying on those who cannot afford child care. we need to zero in on the immigrants and do a needs -- >> thank you, >> next speaker, please. public speaker: good morning, chair peskin, vice-chair mendleman and supervisor melgar.
5:52 am
the fund is a private family foundation in san francisco that has been working in partnership with the city and the system of early child care for over 30 years to champion and strengthen the city's system. on behalf of the fund, i applaud and along with my fellow early childhood colleagues celebrate the decision to move the administrative ordinance forward that formally merges first five san francisco and office of early care and education and fully legislate the san francisco of early childhood. this affirmation the longstanding commit of high quality of early response and early care and experiences setting them up for lifelong success. the department of early childhood will work in partnership with families, providers, advocates, experts and stakeholders to ensure the
5:53 am
city's infrastructure and system meets the diverse needs of san franciscans. to ensure that families and early care and education providers have a voice for them. san francisco has always been a national leader in early childhood and this will only strengthen that reputation. thank you for your leadership and support. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: good morning, supervisors. i'm the executive director of the family connection centers. the connection offers child care centers and preschool to centers to over 1500 young children, parents and caregivers each day. i want to express my enthusiasm of support for the care. our children are 90% low-income and people of color and mostly
5:54 am
immigrants. for decades i have seen this care for children and parents must be integrated. especially during covid, we see how much the children and families struggle and we know that while we take care of children, everyday they go to their families for the rest of their days and the rest of their lives. we should be really proud of this department and the early system of care, early health and child care to families. i want to thank the supervisors for this and we are so committed to the on going collaboration to be sure this department is a major success and keep # children and families in this system of care. thank you. >> public speaker: good morning, board of supervisors, i'm here as an ece and family support
5:55 am
operator supporting over 2200 families in san francisco and alliance and cpac. i want to thank the mayor and former supervisor yee and many who have continued to champion this ordinance. we are excited about the increase of the new city department to bring together more holistically, the frc centers and communities to children 0-5. and to be sure there is a diverse voice including families and champion to the two generation strategy is the way in programs support young children and their families. we have directly served 1200 families with the whole family approach. being active in these
5:56 am
services is critical and we are excited to be a partner with cec and including in a generation system of all families. thank you for including this ordinance. >> thank you. next caller. public speaker: good morning. my name is oscar, a member of the board of the early childhood education in san francisco. i would like to thank mayor breed, and supervisor norman yee for your leadership in this important legislation. i want to bring up about transparency for the language access. a lot of service right now available. it is only available in english. the majority, 1/3 of san
5:57 am
francisco population -- is spanish. so a lot of parents, they don't know the provider, they don't know what's possible for them to ask for it and they will not get the benefit if the community is not informed. so i want to bring up the language for all of this service to make sure that all the families and all the providers are aware of what's available and resource out there for them to utilize. thank you. >> >> thank you. i believe this next caller will be our last caller on the line for public comment. can we have our next caller, please.
5:58 am
public speaker: hi, my name is linda marquez, a parent in san francisco. i do appreciate everything we are seeing with early education because it is much needed. a lot of children are having a loss of learning because of the pandemic. i have two children myself, however, with this new funding, i am actually concerned about the funding and decision making on what pot of money and programs that are going to these uses. we could not spend too much on early childhood education. 0-5 is a benefit for education. i wish my child had benefited and
5:59 am
now he is behind. if he did have this service, he wouldn't be behind in education. i'm hoping the funding for prop c is intended for these purposes. support the families with low-income to increase the compensation of early education professionals and provide support for all children under the age of four whose families are in the low-income area and this is so much needed right now. if a child has a strong foundation, they will be ready for elementary school and middle school and high school and children will be more prepared to thrive in these schools. thank you. >> thank you. we have three more callers jump on. can we get our next caller, please.
6:00 am
>> good morning, chair peskin, vice-chair and rules committee member. thank you so much for your time and attention to the presentation of this ordinance and thank you to supervisor melgar for your presentation and to your leadership for this legislation and of course mayor and mr. yee for this proposition. i'm speaking for the early childhood educators for the children and the important steps of the great amount of work that still needs to be done for the children of san francisco. this merger offers the opportunity to increase the coordination and align our focus on children and families and the system of the people that support them. the ece community members have worked with
6:01 am
supervisor melgar's office and this ordinance to be successful to depend on the budget and including funding sources and intended use of funds as well as on going work of the community. as we take on more comprehensive goals, we need to ensure funding is used as it is intended and in particular that they not be seen as all we need. early education suffers from the information of what true cost is resulting in high cost for parents and which is a high turnover and lack of stable staff and lack of help for families with young children. as an advocate for greater early care and education, we believe in comprehensive and two generation services and ece insight has a crucial part of
6:02 am
this. we also recognize that the intention of the funds does not include all. the current funds are not enough for all. >> thank you, >> next speaker, please. >> next caller, please. >> hello, i would like to call. >> please call in. >> public speaker: i'm a native san franciscan. i grew up through the cdc. it was very
6:03 am
helpful and my brothers and sisters also participated. it was heartening to see over the last decade of many cdc's throughout the system of it was very easy to get into child care systems. i know there has been a lot of changes. i'm hoping that and everybody is thinking the mayor and supervisor melgar, but this is a must. our children should have access to early education. it is a food -- good foundation that creates this for diversity and we want this to be affordable. we want our children to go to places that are affordable. if you go out to san
6:04 am
francisco, many families are paying over $1500, almost $2,000 for child care. this should be a place for higher education. i think about, and they influenced me as a city going up and it helps my son and i hope that you will help other san franciscan parents regardless of their income. it's for the benefit of all children. san franciscan children. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: sorry, i'm calling for item no. 6. >> please press star 3 to get out of the line and when we do call item no. 6, press star 3 again. can we have our last caller,
6:05 am
please. >> public speaker: hello. i am a partnership coordinator for the non-profit and want to give my support for any form of legislation that will increase childhood development and really early essential part. >> i'm sorry, sir. that is on item no. 2. >> >> next speaker, please. >> just to repeat, we are current taking public comment on item no. 2 which is the campaign and code on early childhood department. if you would like to remove yourself from the line, press star 3. >> can we have our last caller.
6:06 am
>> >>clerk: mr. chair, the last caller is done for the item. >> thank you. i'm prepared to make as member of this committee the amendment that you discussed, but the floor is yours. >> no, that's it. chair peskin. thank you so much. i was just asking that you move the amendments and then to please pass the amended resolution out of the committee report, and i would appreciate that very much. thank you so much. >> it shall be. so i will amend the ordinance to
6:07 am
provide under section 86.3 at page 10 line 12, to add the line that the commission shall meet at least four times each calendar year on page 12, line 10, adding that any member in c 5-9 who fails to attend at least half of the meeting on the calendar year shall be deemed to have resigned from the commission, page 13, line 6, adding the sub section sub h to administrator to provide support to the commission and to add the words to the mayor as recommended by the supervisor of schools. recommended by the superintendent of schools to the mayor on those amendments. mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion, supervisor chan?
6:08 am
>> aye. >> vice-chair mandelman, aye. >> chair peskin? aye. that item passes. >> these amendment will be deemed non-substantive? >> i do. >> she does. and therefore i will make this motion to send this item as recommended for the hearing tomorrow. on that motion, >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> the motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> >>clerk: next on the agenda, 3. 220795 [mayoral reappointment, entertainment commission - lieutenant david falzon] motion approving/rejecting the mayor's nomination of lieutenant david falzon to the entertainment commission, term ending july 1, 2026. (clerk of
6:09 am
the board) >> colleagues, this is a reappointment and he is on vacation. normally i would not schedule this unless he was able to attend, but given the board will lose jurisdiction of this matter before we reconvene and given that mr. falzon has been known for many years for working in the police department where he has several decades of experience in the abc liaison unit and has a long history of good representation on the entertainment commission, i thought i would bring this before the committee and offer you colleagues the choice which is we could not act in which case his appointment by the
6:10 am
mayor will be deemed approved, or we can act either to reject which i would not recommend, or to approve which i would recommend albeit he is not here to testify if either of you colleagues have any questions. i would be willing to approve his reappointment. there seems to be no objection from my colleagues. supervisor chan, maybe i miss spoke. maybe i spoke too early. >> no, i think it's fine. i'm in support of this appointment. lieutenant falzon has been on this entertainment commission since 2018, and he has been part of the special effort especially in the last couple years with the pandemic. i'm happy to support his reappointment. thank
6:11 am
you. >> thank you. >> and he happens to be a district 3 constituent, not that that weighed in my decision at all. are there any members of the public who would like to testify on this item no. 3? >> >>clerk: members of the public are able to speak on this item and for those wishing to speak on the line,
6:12 am
>> we do not have any public comment on the line. >> >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> that item passes. >> and i will recommend to send to the committee. >> >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> next item, please. >> 4. 220839 [mayoral appointment, board of appeals - john trasvina] motion approving/rejecting the mayoral appointment of john trasvina to the board of appeals, for a term ending july 1, 2026. (clerk of the board) >> thank you, mr. lazarus who has been on the board for a
6:13 am
number of years has chosen not to seek reappointment and the mayor has nominated john -- and trasvina, he has served on a number of administrations going back to as democratic to obama and biden and the usf law school where he taught u.s. immigration law and stanford law school. i have met with him and he clearly understand the adequacy judicial role of the court of last resort to manifest justice within the city that is the role of board
6:14 am
of appeals. i don't know if you have been able to talk with him or meet with him, but i am prepared to send to the full board if it's acceptable to you, colleagues. with that, i noticed the chair of board of appeals is in chambers this morning. with that, mr. trasvina, the floor is yours. and i will note that the board member retired and i can vote for you. >> it has been an honor to be nominated by the mayor and i appreciate this opportunity to serve san francisco. my native city, ingleside born and proud
6:15 am
father. while i started as the school board member and the voting rights for the elections and deputy city attorney, as you noted, i served my career in washington d.c. as a civil rights advocate and for fair housing and malldef on the council. i did not have time to teach. my teaching was at stanford law school. but i offer legal experience and decision making and capacity and empathy for people, and i have never done this fellow services for the awards but have been nominated by the president and in pasadena and the oatly award. the government and mexican's highest honor for serving the
6:16 am
community outside of the state of mexico. the board of appeals may not have the biggest issues facing the city before it and i'm one of five votes but they can have a lasting impact of the people that come before it not just for their homes or license of their livelihood but faith on the local government. the board gives them a final chance to be heard. i appreciate your support and good words and able to answer any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you. i do support him and support any decisions the
6:17 am
department has to make. i did not have the opportunity to discuss with mr. travsvina before today but i know your work and would like to commend the mayor's office for recommending you. i support. >> thank you. i will say that i didn't have an opportunity to speak directly, but thank you so much for taking the time to speak with my aid kelly grove yesterday. i really appreciate you taking the time on a sunday afternoon. while i think based on what i researched in her that you and i may have a difference of opinions on certain politics, but putting that aside, you are more than qualified in my opinion as well through my research in the things that you have accomplished and the role that you have played over time. i do appreciate your commitment to our city and city service, and i
6:18 am
appreciate your willingness to serve on the board of appeals and again, you are more than qualified to serve on the board of appeals and i am ready to support today. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak and i think we will find an overwhelming abundance of issues that we will continue to work together and continue to work with a city that is inclusive and make that as a city of success if i'm selected and approved for the board of appeals. thank you. >> thank you. with that, we will open up to public comment and will start with the gentleman that i serendipitously bumped into. rig swig, the floor is yours.
6:19 am
>> thank you very much supervisor and thank you for your service. today i come to you as the president of the board of appeals in san francisco in support of john travsvina as our new commissioner replacing anne lazareth who has probably the biggest shoes to fill of anyone in the commission that i have ever worked with and i thank her for her many years of service not only in the board of appeals but many other places and she has big shoes to fill and i can't think of a better person to fill them than mr. travsvina. you can tell by his resume but i also had the opportunity to spend some time with him to discuss what our goals are, what our values are and the service of san francisco and i'm fully
6:20 am
competent he will be a great server of this commission. thank you very much. >> thank you. i discussed with mr. travsvina on friday, it is not always adjudicating the board of appeals but best when it makes the parties reach mutual agreement which i have watched you and the current commission do in some very difficult circumstances. we see it from where we see it when a judge indicates that they may rule in favor of the city or in favor of the litigant and sends us all off to go confer and sometimes we are able to reach agreement because we know which way the court is leaning. so that is the board of appeals at its best and sometimes you have to call balls and strikes and that is the way it is written in our codes. thank you for your work, mr.
6:21 am
swig. with that, are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item. >> >>clerk: members of the public who wish to speak on this item no. 4, the mayoral appointment regarding the board of appeals. public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2495 080 3849 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we currently have five people
6:22 am
on the call for public comment. public speaker: good morning. thank you for for adding mr. travsvina and he is the right person for all the things that come before that board. i am fully supportive and hope he will, and i know he will do a fine job. thanks very much and i support this item strongly. thanks. >> public speaker: i'm a san francisco native and i reject this. he didn't support latino
6:23 am
children and stating that they don't qualify on a merit base. i want to state for the record that people are on the board be fair and neutral and that san francisco and black children are not performing well and not trying hard. we understand they are children struggling but the narrative now if you are a black or brown latino resident in san francisco you are not striving hard for your education, your parents are not encouraging you. anybody who supported recall to this new board i am rejecting and i will keep calling in because i live here, i care about my children, i care about having access. i understanding this the board of appeals, but we need to think about the mind-set. thank you.
6:24 am
>> >> public speaker: i want to state that i reject this appointment due to the paper in the san francisco standard, the newspaper funded by the venture capitalist by michael morris and brings down the voices of black and brown people of san francisco and to limit the sf recall elections that he claims weakens democracy. thank you. >> thank you. can we have our next caller? >> public speaker: i have been watching the board of appeals for a long time. i would like to thank ms. lazareth for her service. however, mr. swig and to be a fair person, and i'm proud of
6:25 am
john travsvina to work with mr. swig to be fair and have empathy. thank you very much. >> >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: good morning supervisors, rules committee. i'm speaking in strong support of john travsvina. you know, i mean i think there is the perception that he's a certain way. i consider myself a moderate. sometimes john and i agree and disagree. he is of high character, high morals, very highly highly qualified. and honestly a great collaborator even when he disagrees. he would be an excellent -- but in terms of the recall and the narrative of this
6:26 am
whole situation, just because somebody supported a cause which by the way, is supported by the majority and the vast majority of san francisco does not means that they agree with the comments of a particular individual and you know where you are going to group the individuals that you might not agree with. i know that john does not care to what has been brought up, and the definition of merit, i myself didn't go to lowell that's okay. i support mayor base lowell, my stepson who is part black, he hopefully will get in. but anyway, i digress. i support john and thank you for listening to my comments. >> thank you. thank you. next caller, please. who appears to be our last
6:27 am
caller. >> public speaker: i'm a san francisco resident and do support john. he seems eminently qualified and see how he's a critic of ice and enforcement and even though the president appointed him in some capacity over that. regarding the recall election, i was against the recall the school board recall. but i think that has nothing to do with this appointment to the board of appeals, and i don't think it should be an interfering factor. i hope you will appoint john. i think he has proven himself to share our values again and again. >> that is all, thank you. >> thank you. >> can we have our next caller.
6:28 am
>> public speaker: i would like to clarify my point that the upset of it came from the previous call and to the current connection to the michael morris venture capitalist and the san francisco -- which continues to propagate and this misinformation which i feel heavily draws a portion that this person should not be on the board of appeals because there is so much bias and just incredibly -- excuse me, if you have already spoken, you are not allowed to provide public comment twice. >> thank you. >> well done, victor. and i may add that publication has gotten more attention than in the last 10 months. are there any other members of the public that have so say anything on this item?
6:29 am
>> that completes the public comments for the line. >> all right. public comment is closed and i will make a motion to remove the word rejecting line 3, the word rejects on line 11. on that motion, >> roll call, please. >>clerk: on that motion. [roll call] >> motion passes without objection. >> all right. i will make a motion to send the item as amended with recommendation as a committee report for the full board to consider tomorrow which if we approve and the mayor swears mr. travsvina in, he can serve on the first committee on wednesday. >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call]
6:30 am
>> motion passes without objection. >> thank you, colleagues. next item, please. >> 5. 220838 [appointment, golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district - supervisor matt dorsey] motion appointing supervisor matt dorsey, term ending january 31, 2023, to the golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district. >> mr. dorsey is not able to attend this appointment. he would like to continue to serve. is there any public caller on the item?
6:31 am
>> public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2495 080 3849 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> we have two callers on the line for this matter. >> first speaker, please. public speaker: once again david, as you know san francisco has nine seats out of the 19 seats on the golden gate bridge highway transportation board of directors and the majority for that members four seats are reserved for the members of the board of supervisors and we only have one member of the board serving that is supervisor stephanie and that will be have
6:32 am
that for -- and i endorse his appointment. thanks for listening. >> >> next speaker, please. >> public speaker: this is lewis again to support mr. dorsey to the board. he is very capable. and i live in district 5 because a whole side of errors that occur and problems. i still support this appointment to the bridge board and i hope you will appoint him without reservation. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other members from
6:33 am
the public on this item? >> that completes the public comment on this item. >> public comment is closed and i will send this to the board with a full recommendation. >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> the motion passes without objection. >> next item, please. >> 6. 220606 [administrative code - surveillance technology policy for police department use of non-city entity surveillance cameras] >> i just want to give an opportunity to provide an announcement on this matter. >> we have an interpreter. >> yes, i will make the announcement when the pc is open. thank you.
6:34 am
>> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we currently have 26 callers on the line, but no one in line yet to speak. i assume we will allow for two minutes when we get to that point. >> i most definitely will, but before we get to that point, let me say a few things and i have said them in this item before us on a couple of occasions. this is the third time before the rules committee. it is a direct result of the legislation that i sponsored that the board of supervisors adopted creating administrative code section 19b which requires every department in city government to come forward with a policy as to each and every piece of surveillance technology that they own or intend to acquire. it took the san francisco police department a little while, but they have come forward with one of many
6:35 am
policies, most of the rest of them yet to come and this one, colleagues, as you are aware is with regard to the use of non-city surveillance cameras, in other words third party surveillance cameras, and i have said in previous hearings that it was my desire not only to meet the transparency b in this inclusion and having before the board of supervisors to weigh the very important public policy issues of civil # liberties with respect to public privacy and to
6:36 am
have the tools made available to san francisco safe. that is what we have been trying to balance over the last two meetings and to that end, i have had a number of conversations and meetings with the san francisco police department namely chief scott who is present at this meeting today remotely and his staff as well as representatives of the mayor's office as this policy and the ordinance approving this policy are carried by mayor breed. to that end, colleagues, you have before you and it was disseminated earlier, a number of changes to the policy which can only be effectuated to the
6:37 am
change of the ordinance and most importantly this requires two things that were not in the original ordinance. >> no. 1, it requires a sunset date in one year after the enactment of this policy which means for better or for worse, it will be incumbent on this board of supervisors to consider the policy again in one year or it will terminate. it will terminate. the question is do we want to reup it and reup it on what terms? no. 2, to that end, it requires a much more robust reporting requirement as to how the policy was used in intervening year with four quarterly reports. which i think will be data points for us to look at this experiment and see whether or
6:38 am
not it appropriately balances those competing public interest. i can delve into the minutia of the words in the policy, but i think very carefully seeks to narrow use of third party surveillance cameras in the public realm and that is and so forth in the authorized use language that you will see in no. 1 on page 2, and does a number of additional changes throughout the most important being the reporting requirements. with that, i would like to welcome the police department to make any comments or answer any questions that you may have, colleagues. i assume as a threshold matter, department city attorney pearson, that these changes are
6:39 am
not substantive but we have not had a chance to discuss it. so i will start by just asking you whether or not my guess in that direction is correct or not? >> deputy city attorney an pearson, i just received the amendment and had a chance to scan through them and i believe they are substantive and would require a continuance. >> there you go, unscripted. >> thank you for the work that you have done on this amendment. i'm the special project manager working in the chief's office. i will refer to the chief. i don't know if he has any welcome statements about the here to answer any questions you have and appreciate the work you have put into this involvement. >> good morning, chief. the first time i encounter you where
6:40 am
you are not in person. >> thank you. i had an appointment that would not allow me to be in person. i want to say first of all thanks to the rules committee and all the members of the public that weighed in on this and discussed this important policy with us. it is a palatable policy for our city. i want to appreciate all the work that went into this and i hope we get the support of the rules committee to move it forward. the highlights that you mentioned and changes that you mentioned is something that we can write as far as privacy and responsible uses and surveillance to technology to really address some of the criminal and crime issues in our city and protect large scale public events. again, i won't go into much
6:41 am
detail. we will be available to answer questions, special assistance steve and i, and i appreciate your work for negotiating what i believe to be a palatable policy that will serve the best interest of our city. thank you. >> thank you, chief. why don't we open this item up to public comment and it sounds, colleagues, like we will get to hear this a fourth time based on what the city attorney just told us. before we do that, supervisor chan? >> thank you, chair peskin, i am going to say that i am really pleased to hear that there is a sunset date and a quality report to help us really understand a better understand how this actually will be implemented, and i think those are reasonable terms and conditions. it is a
6:42 am
very in my opinion, for someone like me, a very overwhelming issue to really tackle and understand and in order to reach the balance of public safety and 1st amendment rights, and so, having the opportunity with a quarterly report and sort of this timeline of one year is an opportunity for me for the very least as a policy maker in this city to have a better understanding of what can be done and what should not be done. thank you. >> thank you. why don't we go to public comment. >>clerk: yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item and joining us in person should lineup to speak at this time.
6:43 am
>> public comment call in 1 (415) 655-0001 / meeting id: 2495 080 3849 # # (press *3 to enter the speaker line) >> chair peskin, before i ask to provide the announcement, we currently have 48 callers with 26 in line to speak. i was wondering if you want to adjust the speaker time to one person. would you like to make any announcements at this time? >> >> sure, i want to confirm the time limit is one minute, right? >> yes, that's correct.
6:44 am
>> [speaking chinese] >> public speaker: i would like to speak against this and as you
6:45 am
will violate our rights in this city. the problems of the city cannot be solved through the police. you are all participating in a way with what's going on in the city right now where everybody is afraid of crime and not addressing the root causes of this issue. i want to advise you to vote against this. this should be dead in the water. last week, you said to yourselves and progressives and stop entertaining this thing. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.
6:46 am
public speaker: hi, i'm speaking as a business owner and the business community needs to be in a stable environment to function and this makes this situation more difficult and undermines the legitimacy that we need to continue doing business. the heavy handed over correction is an over reach and this damage to the legitimacy of people implementing this law is something that as a business person concerns me and in fact frightens me. >> good morning. my name is adrian, and i'm a resident of san francisco. first on this important issue, i would like to express my opposition to the one minute limit. we need to be heard. i also want to refer you to the editorial from the san
6:47 am
francisco chronicle this morning regarding this ordinance. i haven't seen it yet, but they are in opposition to it. another issue i would like to raise is i oppose this and i also feel there is going to be discrimination on this and you will see all the people that have complaints. thank you. >> >> thank you. i believe that is our last in person speaker. we will move to our telephone public commenters.
6:48 am
public speaker: good morning. i am strongly opposed for expanding the use of surveillance cameras. private cameras should not be in the hands of law enforcement. we don't want to live in a big brother environment. we don't want data collected on us anytime we enter into the public realm and we don't want san francisco p.d. and other law enforcements across the country using shared footage to target protesters and people of colo. please shut this down and protect our civil rights. >> thank you. next caller, please.
6:49 am
public speaker: hi, supervisors and chief scott, i'm marlene tran. as a long time community activist in mission valley, i am calling on behalf of many concerned citizens to ask you to support the mayor legislation to install city cameras to make san francisco a safer city. unfortunately in my years of community work to assist the elderly and non-english speaking victims in our very high crime neighborhoods, many of these crimes were not reported because of lack of vales # surveillance cameras and this will help to deter crime because of video that will serve law enforcement to do the administrative work. we strongly support the mayor's
6:50 am
proposal for security cameras to increase public safety >> next caller, please. public speaker: good morning. director of fisherman's wharf. i have supported the installation of the cameras and now from 2012 expanded the program around # union square and there were 20 cameras. in my professional opinion, because i know the system inside and out, the people of san francisco have nothing to fear by having sf p.d. watching them on the sidewalk whether in person or the camera. to my knowledge people don't feel safe walking on sidewalks or parking on our streets. providing sf p.d. with
6:51 am
the tools to be more efficient with the officers they do have make sense. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: yes, this is david elliot # lewis and i do not feel safe in san francisco because the police do not have access to video. i feel this ordinance will make our city, especially my neighborhood of the tenderloin feel safer for elders, for minorities, for all. it will give us access to the public safety that we have been lacking. i think the one year that will give us a chance to check this legislation if it's not working right and let's give it a shot
6:52 am
and a try. we are in danger right now, and i would ask you to pass this legislation. thank you very much. >> next caller, please. public speaker: my name is mike castro and i already feel unsafe. allowing sf p.d. to look at the cameras for the public to only help and assist the people in the city to feel safer. this is a cheap form of fearmongering. i fully support this. thank you very much. >> next caller, please.
6:53 am
public speaker: [speaking chinese] >>
6:54 am
>> thank you. >> interpreter: hello members of the community. my name is ms. chan. i would like to tell you a story of mine. there was one day that my household changed the door but there was an opportunity for to have a burglary and while everyone in our household was sleeping and this kind of home break in happened and when the police came to our house and we wanted to show them our camera, but however there is some
6:55 am
differences to capture what is captured at that time so it's really hard to suspend the suspicion of that incident, and we contacted the laborers but the camera that we have is not clear enough. i really urge the supervisors to support this tech policy because it will help us to increase the safety and security of our residents because i really think that it's reasonable and if you do not pass this legislation and it really helps all the chinese residents that live in our neighborhood. if you can
6:56 am
consider to install the surveillance cameras. thank you. >> thank you, >> next speaker, please. >> yes, this is paulina. and this is my third time speaking on this item and sounds like there is going to be a fourth. just to speak off the cuff, you know, first of all i support this and supported it consistently. and when you have some of the people on the exchange side saying, well, you have to get to the causes and of course you have to improve upon it and i'm a realist. we are not going to get to a point where we are going to eliminate crime or curb it so substantially that it's not a problem. i'm talking about obviously street crime in this instance. i think the real
6:57 am
harm and unrealistic expectations does this in and goes against public safety expectation and demands quite frankly. so i support this surveillance. thank you. >> public speaker: hi. it is still possible to solve crimes and get a search warrant to access cameras. no one is trying to impede crime investigations.
6:58 am
allowing this, people will be victims and if they turnover footage to jurisdictions in red states. that puts people in significant danger. those can encourage this danger if sf p.d. decides to hand this footage to ice. i applaud the updates that you have made to requiring quarterly reporting but there is so much more to make this policy workable. >> next caller, please. >>
6:59 am
public speaker: [speaking chinese]
7:00 am
7:01 am
>> hello, members of this committee. as you know that crime is in a rise and we don't feel safe in chinatown or other parts of san francisco as well. we really understand that there are some systems of support and involve privacy and we know that the right of privacy is very important to everyone in san francisco. however we really think that priority should be to public safety. it should be in favor of priority not privacy. thank you. >> next caller, please. public speaker: good morning, supervisors. i'm a business
7:02 am
owner in san francisco and every day my neighborhood is hit with crime. i'm very much in support of this new version of the surveillance policy. it's really important to implement policy for public safety but we need new tools to combat this crime that is overwhelming our city and we need more strategy to these businesses and we need to help law enforcement to deal with the mass looting and open air drug dealing which we never had in the past which i have lived here my entire life and this is normality only impacting human lives but the entire system. please get this policy approved as soon as possible.
7:03 am
>> public speaker: on behalf of the organization, as written this proposal is affecting our fundamental rights and abuse. concerns are shared by the members of support. this has an invasive and there is a need for strong surveillance. police repeatedly affected this and we overwhelmingly support this and under no certain circumstances should sf p.d. have unchecked surveillance powers. thank you. >> thank you. next caller,
7:04 am
please. >> i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> hi, asians are the no. 1 target in san francisco and have
7:05 am
experienced crime against asians. please stop hate and please pass the legislation and to help san francisco and keep it more safe. that is my opinion. thank you. >> >> thank you. can we have our next caller, please. >> >> apparently >> apparently the standard of sf >> is not possible and this is to break up access and crime to
7:06 am
reduce quality of life. this does not make us safer at all. please support this legislation. thank you so much. >> hi. i'm a resident of district 6. i'm asking you to support this policy. it appears to me from what i have read that it's a threat to fundamental rights to lead to police discrimination. at minimum it needs to be prevented to prevent harm and this is should be done with the most valuable people in mind. thank you >>
7:07 am
>> [speaking cantonese]
7:08 am
>> >> hello? >> hi. [speaking cantonese]
7:09 am
>> >> hello, members of the committee. my name is sam. first i would like to urge you to support this policy for the very reason of first i think that it will help to prevent some
7:10 am
violence abuse, and also it will and for all of our residents, i think the police will be given rights, and if rather they would want to use surveillance cameras or not, they lead to direct and search, and also the very reason that the police officers should be trained on how to use the surveillance cameras, and we all know that all of our residents have the special freedom and will also help to guarantee to protect the right of privacy for
7:11 am
all the residents which is the reason why i urge you to support the surveillance of this technology policy. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> please proceed.
7:12 am
>> >> yes, hello, members of the committee, my name is wendy. i am the resident of san francisco. i have lived in san francisco for several years, and in the past i told my friend
7:13 am
that i really think that san francisco's public safety is really good. because a lot of people they can wear the luxury or very fine jewelry, and they can feel safe to walk out. however, in the recent years, when we opened the tv or listen to the radio or read some newspaper, we look that there is increase of crime especially about burglaies and there are some burglaries instance happened in union square and there is a lot of car break-ins happening in san francisco everywhere. and also noticed that some battery or
7:14 am
attack instance happened in financial district, and we also noticed there was some drug dealing crimes happening in tenderloin or fillmore areas. all of these crimes activities will increase our awareness that we should install the surveillance cameras in san francisco. there is a reason why i urge you to support the surveillance camera policy. thank you. >> next caller, please.
7:15 am
>> i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> please proceed. >> >> hello, members of the rules committee. i would like to point out the things that in liver hearst there is -- the reason
7:16 am
why because they don't know how to discuss with the operators and describe the suspicions in english. that is discourages them to report the incident to police when the incident happens. we really want to urge you or to support the surveillance technological policy to help our residents, thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please.
7:17 am
>> hello. please go ahead. >> [speaking cantonese] >> hello members of the rules committee. my name is maggie. i also live in san francisco, and i want to -- i'm here to support
7:18 am
this surveillance tech policy for the very reasons if this surveillance camera help the police with investigation for some crime instance, and also it can help with the cameras to # help clarify or seek clearly what happened in that instance and will hold accountability for the police department and also for the residents as well and that's why i am here to support the surveillance tech policy. thank you. >> thank you.
7:19 am
next caller, please. public speaker: good morning, members of the rules committee. i'm with the electronic foundation and oppose the sf p.d. camera policy. i would like to put up again the san francisco chronicles recent editorial titled angle sf property crimes is a way of taking away our property rights. a lot of people including myself are concerned about crime on the street and safety. the question is whether sacrificing privacy is going to help with that and whether this policy is going to help with that. it should be really clear to folks listening in that if a crime is happening, the police can get that footage. the question is whether they
7:20 am
should be able to be watching people on the street with live surveillance. that's what this debate is about. some people it will help people feel safer knowing the police are watching us. thank you. # next caller, please. public speaker: i as previously mentioned -- there is no justification even that the police are receiving more money to up their salaries and benefits and retention thanks to you as well as increasing the number of police surveillance and cars. so what part of this legislation are you lying about next? that's what i would like to know. thankfully, due to the dispute of this technology will not solve anything. that's all. thank you. >> next caller, please.
7:21 am
public speaker: hello, i'm a long time san francisco resident and i oppose this ordinance. i can't believe we are still discussing this ordinance. police lie all the goddamn time. we are in violation of the san francisco ordinance at that time. why are you giving police more tools to violate our lives and kill more black people. sf p.d. stops black and brown people at a high proportional rate. this has the highest cost of all police and black residents. more police is not okay, using cameras to spy on people is not okay. crime is down from 2019. by the police's own data. we do not need more policing. we do not need more cameras. it is unsafe.
7:22 am
crime is down. please vote against surveillance. >> >> thank you. can i have our next caller. public speaker: hello, my name is janette. i am a resident and business owner in district 8. i support this legislation, and i appreciate the thoughtful process that is going on to balance 1st amendment rights and rights to privacy with our rights as citizens to a safe environment. our business is daily impacted by crime, and open air drug dealing that has been occurring unchecked in the tenderloin and
7:23 am
parts of the mission and now moving into our very small sleepy neighborhood in glen park. i urge you to continue to work through the issues associated with this, and arrive at a peaceful legislation that will be effective, and appreciate the time. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hello. >> i will speak english. >> san francisco in china out the receive a small amount of funding. there are a few
7:24 am
security cameras in the chinatown street. each cameras very effective in monitoring crimes, but chinatown is much safer. the paper also says the most popular program is the free ring security cameras by supervisor mar. they are giving the ring away as soon as they are available. please support this legislation. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hello, i want to say first of all i think that we need longer than a minute to discuss these issues and for
7:25 am
people to weigh in. i also wanted to say that i think sf p.d. and needs to increase community engagement and decrease language barriers if there is an issue for people feeling that they can not communicate effectively with sf p.d. about crime that's happening. let's not give up our right to privacy, and in order to bridge that gap. there obviously is more things that sf p.d. can do aside from requesting to view cameras that are private. and the other thing is who is going to be able to say no if sf p.d. comes to the door especially if there is a language barrier between law enforcement and whoever has the camera. how is it going to be made clear what is happening? there are too many holes. >> your time has elapsed. thank
7:26 am
you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, i'm here to support this amendment and would like to echo this monitoring and the video not # linked to specific crime and watching surveillance cameras for businesses and surveillance cannot be fringed on civil liberties. thank you. >> next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is eddie hernandez with the coalition also here to make a statement and urge you to
7:27 am
suspend this. london breed want this technology to hide this in san francisco. we know that you have control of the people and those who have announced this proposal and this is abuse in power. we urge you to speak out as well. this will allow to use surveillance on any area. the crowd control can easily subject workers and protesters. we object. while you are using this to -- and heading to the street, we must not hand tools to has to politicians. >> next caller, please. public speaker: good morning,
7:28 am
i'm a san francisco resident in district 5. i would like to thank supervisor peskin for his leadership. as for the past few weeks, this proposal is seriously flawed and unpopular but we have been here before. in the 2000 berkeley pilot program, they thought they were invasive. now at stanford, that carpeting this city with cameras and this is a civil liberty disaster and this is to protect the 1st amendment activity and prevent video footage from being shared and stop police from making coercive requests.
7:29 am
in the past, it has become abundantly clear that this is not wanted. >> thank you, next caller, please. >> >> public speaker: good afternoon, i'm calling in support of opposition and ask the board of supervisors to not capitulate to the sf p.d. to increase their efforts to expand this surveillance technology. my concerns are these and they were all revealed by mit, google and the alu and the washington post. the use of monitoring technology violates our 1st amendment and our ability and freedom to assemble and freedom of speech. additionally, the police will conduct its own oversight that
7:30 am
means they will not be held accountable for this conduct in monitoring and surveillance. thirdly this technology benefits these -- and makes those vulnerable to inaccuracies. >> thank you. for the record we outlawed facial recognition technology. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hello? >> yes, please proceed. >> hi. okay, [speaking cantonese] >> i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> >> [speaking cantonese]
7:31 am
7:32 am
>> >> public speaker: hello, members of the committee. i would like to give you some information that is in chinatown there is non-profits who adopted a program that after a city fund from the city that they are allowed to store several cameras in chinatown neighborhoods, and it gave a sense of security for the neighbors in chinatown. i think that is a good program.
7:33 am
also another program, the program is introduced by supervisor mar that is a free ring security camera program, and i know a lot of residents also applied for that program. and they all support in store surveillance cameras and that's the reason why i'm calling in to urge you all to support this surveillance technology policy. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> [speaking cantonese]
7:34 am
>> >> thank you. >> >> >> >> hello, members of the rules
7:35 am
committee. i'm calling to support this legislation and now in the san francisco p.d. to sf live video footage. because as you know that and i heard a lot of car break-ins in the mission area. recently i also went to travel to boston on other cities, and i feel a strong sense of security in those cities. however compared to san francisco and i lacked confidence in public safety in san francisco, and i don't feel safe living in san francisco at all. and also why i am here to support the
7:36 am
surveillance technological policy because it can help with crime and help the police department to provide some -- accountability to the san francisco police department. for this reason, it's a good reason to store cameras in san francisco. it will increase public safety for san francisco residents. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hi, this is william, a resident of san francisco. i'm against this proposal. it's an over reach of our basic rights, civil rights and there is no
7:37 am
doubt in my mind that san francisco p.d. will abuse this and this is not safer. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hello, i'm calling on behalf of the league of women voters in san francisco. we are in opposition. the league supports those in trust and the rights protected by the constitution should not be weakened ora # -- abridged and this is potential bias and discrimination and racism. i urge you to listen to the committee. how will improper
7:38 am
surveillance be handled? and this has been put off for years being revised. why are you considering this ordinance without the help of an active collaborative reform cia working group. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: good afternoon, supervisors, my name is marshall, calling as a representative from the public defenders office. first i want to sincerely thank supervisors chan and peskin on this important issue. i'm asking you to amend this policy to make an amendment by the sf coalition. sf p.d.'s proposal as written continues to control communities of color.
7:39 am
to monitor the first amendment protected activity and to allow monitoring of misdemeanor activities legalizes this surveillance of the entire city. this policy must not allow the city to enact this footage and this will not make us safer. san francisco does not support more surveillance. we want san francisco to support our basic needs like housing. this is all reflected in sunday's editorial. >> next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is katie. i live in district one. i'm speaking for the survivor of
7:40 am
violence and violence survivor. the fact that we need more surveillance and more police that will make us safer. there is mountains of evidence that will prove this. if this were true, we would be the safest community in our world and that is not the case. this doesn't make our community safer. in fact more police and violence is directly tied to increase in police contact with marginalized community members. this is police power in san francisco and i urge you to oppose it. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hello. >> [speaking chinese]
7:41 am
>> >> interpreter.. hello members of the committee. i have lived here for 13 years, and i also see that the public safety in san francisco has become worse and worse, and for myself, i also had a home break in for two times in the past, and i really think that if we support in
7:42 am
store, the surveillance cameras, it will help the san francisco police department to deter crime. and that's the reason why i'm calling to support the legislation and live video cameras. thank you. >> next caller, please. public speaker: hello, am i on? >> yes, please proceed. >> this is a blatant move towards fascism. we have been
7:43 am
interrogated, targeted all of our lives, mayor breed already appointed the da and cavaliers against massive incarceration. this is an excuse to spend more money on the police department. let me add the humanity aspect here. the police murdered folks in cold blood and you want folks to be accountable for selling drugs when the budget and the municipal revenue that could be used for community resources. the root of this problem, you are talking about getting to the root of the problem, this has been getting denied to the people. how can 2,000 cops not be enough for a 7 x 7 city and 2,000 square miles. you don't need guns. you have cameras on your body where somehow you
7:44 am
hesitate to turn on to make you accountable. >> next caller, please. >> public speaker: yes, good afternoon, this is tracy rosenberg on behalf of open privacy to oppose the policy as currently written. it needs more guardrail. specifically one out of state and federal video sharing should be banned, two, historical archival evidence that has no evidence of a crime on it, it has been called historical incidents. should be dumped within 30 days, thirdly, live monitoring should be restricted to emergencies only. with those changes, we could look at supporting this policy, but right now, we are in full
7:45 am
opposition. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: yes, good afternoon, board of supervisors and chief scott. my name is cecile, i live in north beach. i strongly support sf p.d.'s request to use of cameras and public spaces. we have seen so many smash and grabs recently and this tool will help to protect and deter criminal activity. i would feel safer if police can monitor crime in real time and will not affect our rights. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hello, my name is matthew, a resident of district 1. i just want to make sure that people realize what
7:46 am
this entails. a lot of people think that this will somehow be the silver bullet to stop crime. but live monitoring will not be something that they can't get. they can request it and get it. this is not going to solve anything but encourage police to sit all day and watch people in their everyday lives. this will not do anything for safety and i strongly that this board does not support this bill. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is jessica calling from district 6 and calling to weigh in on opposing the idea of increased surveillance by police. i think
7:47 am
it's the exact opposite of what we need and i'm a little horrified that people are considering doing this, and i'm horrified that breed and her da are doing this. i feel like it's a fascist type of idea. the antithesis of what we need and the police are horrifying this act towards black and brown people and i know the asian people are afraid of being hurt these days and i understand they are worried, and i know that is not true for all, but for those who are, this will not help. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hi. this is leilani. district
7:48 am
1. i want to say first it's an embarrassment to say that sf p.d. does not have translation service even though they have a $900 million budget. we should keep an eye on that. also when somebody says but, regarding privacy rights, that's another concern for us. privacy rights are fundamental and i don't think they should have access to it. as an american citizen, i want to have privacy and so do you all. to give them further ways of infringing on our private daily life is wrong. i think that they need better restructuring in their department. we need to look at their work flows more. i think they need a lot of clean up and everybody knows this. and for them to try to violate our
7:49 am
rights to excuse their poor performance is ridiculous. i think we deserve better. >> you are out of time. next caller, please. public speaker: hello, my name is shaina, a san francisco resident. i urge supervisors to vote no on giving access to use private cameras. this should not be used against the privacy of citizens. we could not allow further harm to our community for over # surveillance. this will not make us safer but only put our civil liberties at risk. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hello, i'm calling to oppose this in #
7:50 am
intrusion to our policy and sf p.d. has broken many laws including using dna from rape victims to put on more crime on the victims instead of focusing on the rapist. why are we even considering giving more access to private information? we just need to stop this intrusion into our privacy. i live downtown, there is already a lot of police. you can take a walk and arrest people for doing drugs if that's the true intention of this. this again is not the answer. i'm just saying there is police everywhere, alchemy everywhere. i don't need another point of entry into my private life for sf p.d. to keep surveillance on me. it's
7:51 am
fascism. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, i'm here on behalf of the asian and american asian law caucus and we are in opposition to this ordinance. it poses a great concern to this community and this is a mass escalation of further power to police and this will include federal agencies and federal brokers and would like to close that loophole for outside agencies sharing with this information by sf p.d. and with
7:52 am
sf p.d.'s history of collaborating with the fbi for years for spying and surveillance on immigrants and communities of color, it's a complete violation of the san francisco ordinances created. >> thank you. and i would suggest to the previous speaker that they look at the amendments which they will have plenty of time to do between now and our next meeting. >> thank you. >> can we have our next caller? >> public speaker: hello. am i online? >> yes, you are. >> okay. i'm a resident of
7:53 am
ingleside. i oppose this legislation because a lot of asians in our community, they don't speak english well because the language barrier it's under reported those crimes against them. and i want to give the police more tools. their access is not unlimited. if i feel our community is not safe, the priority should be the safety over this so-called privacy. if you have safety, even you have
7:54 am
privacy. thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: can you hear me? >> please proceed. >> david propel. if we can get a warning please. that's incredibly important with the one minute time limit. i have not seen the amendments that were described earlier, but had a couple of thoughts to share. it seems to me that this is not likely to get done before the board recess. i think the earliest final passage date of the board would be september 20th, and the mayor would have 10 days and it's 30 days to take the effect as an ordinance. i would suggest inserting an operative date no early than november 1st and if you are suggesting quarterly reports which sound like a great
7:55 am
idea after february 1st, may 1, august 1st and november 1st of 23. i would suggest a 15 month sunset date to february 1st of 24, so an annual report can be compiled and reviewed to be discussed early november so the board can consider what to do thereafter. thanks for listening. >> next caller, please. >>
7:56 am
public speaker: on the violent crimes in our community, they are not reported as crimes because of the language barriers and they worry that they can't describe the perpetrator. with this, it will help those who speak english getting the justice they deserve. please support this legislation. my name is shelly pan. thank you. >> next caller, please. >> public speaker: hello, this is ellen, and i think this policy is a violation to the first and 4th amendment and what these
7:57 am
cameras can do in actuality and capable to what is called crime prevention. i think is overlooked. i urge you to vote against this policy. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is jennifer, a san francisco resident in district 2. i have also lost confidence in public safety and i urge supervisors to vote yes, giving sf p.d. access to real time surveillance data. i live around the corner of a restaurant and the restaurant has been broken into twice, and i think the rise in crime really hurts business owners and you hear people asking for footages from neighbors to like at it. i also visit chinatown quite often
7:58 am
and it was almost every other weekend that they were broken into and someone mentioned earlier that there are non-profits that are installing cameras and giving sf p.d. access to surveillance data will make this seniors feel safer since we have seen anti-asian crime increase in the last year. i would ask the supervisors to vote yes and restore confidence. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: the drug trade in the tenderloin and soma is by two gangs and one with the sinaloa cartel. everybody knows this, the supervisors know this, the mayor knows this. they are selling fentanyl that is destroying people and destroying families. we need to use this technology to fight back against
7:59 am
the cartels. and we are losing. if sf p.d. needs to see who i'm a date with, so be it. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is grace coleman, a resident of district 7 and i own a small business in district 9. i'm calling against this policy. i do not believe giving access to sf p.d. to our surveillance cameras is a violation of our privacy. you are consistently receiving more financial support than our vulnerable members of our community. for those in the community, i promise this won't increase your safety. i implore
8:00 am
you to undescribe from the delusion of this fascist fearmongering and ask that you displace this with compassion instead of the threat of more violence. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: good afternoon rules committee members. i strongly oppose this policy. this policy goes directly against the will of the people. you must reject this proposal. san francisco has more police officers per capita than any city in california. and sf p.d. continues to advocate their duties while blaming anyone other than themselves. >> sf p.d. can't do something as easy as removing a metal barricade and they are going to give them wide surveillance
8:01 am
video. we need to do a better job without demanding more money. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> # public speaker: hi, i'm a district 9 resident for 20 years. i'm absolutely # opposed to this policy and a lot of speakers opposed to it. i'm in agreement with their argument. i want to say to those who do support the policy who think this is going to increase their safety, this is not going to happen. if the crime happens, the police can do what they always have done which is get a warrant and look at the footage. if you think that someone is going to be watching your cameras to be sure no one is watching you, that is no way that's going to happen. >> thank you. next caller,
8:02 am
please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is cooper in district 8. i am against this policy because it poses a # threat to people of san francisco. public safety will not be improved by investing and standing in police powers. i strongly urge the committee to oppose the policy. thank you. >> thank you. >> next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is jan and i'm in district 2, and i wanted to recall that last week supervisor safai told us just a couple years ago that after the surveillance cameras were installed at an intersection in district 11 that the murder rate went down and same with violent
8:03 am
crime. so what is the life worth to you people? i'm hearing caller after caller say our privacy is worth everything. that safety can't come at the expense of someone's privacy. really? even the possibility that somebody might not get murdered because the surveillance cameras are up? it's ridiculous what i'm hearing. i'm hearing a lot of supporters and a lot of anti-people oppose this. great. i'm glad you got organized here. i strongly support this legislation and urge you to pass it. >> thank you. >> we have a new caller. >> public speaker: hello. >> hi, please proceed.
8:04 am
>> hold on for a second as i identify the chinese dialect. are you speaking chinese? hello? >> public speaker: hi. >> before the cantonese member proceed, i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> please proceed. >> [speaking cantonese] >>
8:05 am
>> public speaker: hello, members of the rules committee, my name is cindy # wu. i would like to
8:06 am
report that in 2020 there was many crimes in san francisco and all the jewelry stores and seafood and we noticed there is a lot of home break-ins. and there are many asian victims. and there are many asians and car break-ins that is very dangerous, and that's why i'm calling on the san francisco department to access the live video footage of private security cameras because i really think it will help to decrease and also deter crime.
8:07 am
so that's why i would say yes on this legislation. thank you. >> public speaker: hi. my name is kelly. i think the people underestimate how much police will be watching these cameras. it's unfortunate that they don't spend a lot of time fighting crime, but it's just the reality. so giving them access to live cameras isn't going to deter crime. there is already cameras out. the times that it does deter crime is an actual visible camera. but giving people access to private security cameras that aren't really visible and isn't going
8:08 am
to deter any crime from happening. it's a gross very obvious egregious deterrent to this amendment. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: what i want to say is that this is an important item and to give one minute is doing injustice. but if that's the way you board of supervisors want to operate, shame on you. that's all i got to say. thank you very much.
8:09 am
>> next caller, please. public speaker: hi i'm very glad that you are reviewing this amendment and thank you to the chronicle editorial that speaks to this specific amendment to curtail surveillance in our community and the police department have a track record of surveillance by the department and it's not hard to picture how communities of color will be disproportionately impacted by increased surveillance. you need significant amendments to this policy because currently the sf p.d. # draft gives police more power to this surveillance.
8:10 am
in the amendment to limit the police correct footage -- >> your time is up. >> and also amended to protect. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hello, caller, you can speak at this time. >> public speaker: hello? >> please proceed. >> caller, you can proceed. >> i don't think they are aware that we are on the line. maybe we'll come back to them.
8:11 am
>> hello? >> please proceed. public speaker: hello? >> interpreter: let me identify the chinese dialect before i proceed. >> before the cantonese person speaks, i would like to give instructions in cantonese. >> [speaking cantonese] >> >> >> interpreter: sorry about that. i already delivered my testimony before. i pressed the
8:12 am
wrong button. sorry. >> >> okay. >> good. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, thank you. in my opinion organized crime in chinatown or em brazen home invasions and crimes are written down and never followed up and why are they paid businesses to watch in union square to match the stores and only to see car break-ins and ignore it. police cannot watch all cameras at once and react instantly. we should not allow real time access to
8:13 am
private cameras unless there is a warrant given by a private resident. >> thank you. i believe our caller will be the last caller. >> public speaker: i just wanted to say that i oppose this measure because this circumstance events the rights given to people to have more in place before security footage is pulled and it is a violation of our rights to have privacy. so please vote no. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: thank you. i would like to agree with the previous person that these cameras will create a catch 22 where the police don't need evidence to begin arresting
8:14 am
someone on the street aside from many unofficial laws that they don't often adhere to anyway and will lead to more obstruction to the policing in the communities. i come across these people every week. the drug dealers are not scary. who cares about them. take care of your safety. district 5. >> >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: i agree with so many of the speakers today. how come the police don't have any translators. what's up with
8:15 am
that. they have a large percentage of the budget and they can't provide someone available. maybe unlimited accesses to cameras and no amendment to this will make this okay. the mayor continues to over step boundaries and making choices in our communities and again this is taking money from the community and housing from our city. if these needs were met, none of this would be happening. >> thank you. i believe that was our last caller. mr. atkinson, can you confirm that? >>clerk: mr. chair, there are no
8:16 am
no other callers in the queue. i apologize, we have one last person. public speaker: hi, i'm carrie from san francisco and i'm in opposition to this policy. this will increase the police surveillance powers and sfpd private cameras. the policy is a threat to our fundamental rights to lead to abuse and discrimination. we care about justice and activist, we must do everything we can to protect privacy protection and not more surveillance. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi my name is # arianna. a resident and strongly
8:17 am
opposed to this. i do not agree with this -- [inaudible] >> the footage -- i think this is a severe over reach, and i strongly urge you to oppose this and vote no. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you, next caller, please. >> public speaker: hi, my name is raymond and i support the legislation. security cameras are important for our safety. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is lloyd silverstein of the merchants association. i have not had time to read this legislation, but we have tried
8:18 am
very hard to get a security camera system into hayes valley to make our neighborhood more safe. we have been told that these cameras would not be monitored and based on that, we have been able to sell this program to our community. >> this will not change that. >> i'm sorry? >> this will not change that. >> okay. all right. well then, that's the only comment i have. i haven't had a chance to read the legislation. i just wanted to make sure as we have been trying to get this program in. when we at a you can to sf, there is talks that this is going to be monitored. if you say it's not going to change that, i will retract my comment. >> thank you, next caller, please. public speaker: hello supervisors, my name is hope williams, a district 9 resident,
8:19 am
a black activist and i was brought against sfpd and this would increase the surveillance powers and this is unprecedented in u.s. history. this proposal is also deeply unpopular and a recent citywide poll, this possess sfpd possess this with the 22 voters nas -- in giving sfpd the right to monitor businesses and people's homes. please vote no to this glaring
8:20 am
civil rights issue. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, i'm a san francisco native in district 8 and oppose this policy and will unfairly target black and brown communities that are already at a high rate of police brutality and violence. please vote no. >> thank you. next caller, please. public speaker: hi, my name is nina. i wanted to support this legislation. san francisco has been a sky rocket of over 500 anti-asian hate crime and i hear they are saying there is not much of a safety issue and i can tell you i have been a victim of crime and this has increased in the last year. when you are in
8:21 am
the public space, you need to remember you are in a public space. so anything that helps you to ensure another person that is not getting attacked and die, i think it's necessary at this moment and this is not a legislation that will go on forever. let's see if we can save a person. so, there is a lot of amendments that will assure our privacy. so please consider this and i strongly support this. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> that was the last caller. all right public comment on this item is closed for today. >> believe it or not, i really appreciate all of that public comment for and against because that's precisely what administrative code 19b was designed to do over things that are really very important which is to do them transparently and in public. before 19b, we would
8:22 am
have never had this conversation because there was no mechanism for these kinds of hearings and policies. so it is doing at least in part what it was designed to do. i did not realize going into this meeting that the city attorney would deem these amendments substantive, but it is what it is. what i would like to do, colleagues, is to adopt the a for discussed amendments establishing the discussion date more robust for additional requirements and the host of other changes in the policy that would be made by the ordinance and then continue the item as amended to our first meeting after the summer recess which believe it or not is not going to be until monday september 12th. if there are no objections, mr. young, on the motion to amend a
8:23 am
>> roll call, please. >> yes, before we amend the motion, we had one more person jump in for public comment. would you like to hear from them? >> yes, but it will only be this one person because we have one more item and i sit on the rules committee which convenes in six minutes, i mean land use committee. >> public commenter, please come forward, please. public speaker: hello? >> yes, please proceed. >> public speaker: hi, yeah, i'm calling to also speak out against this measure. the mayor wants to give free reigns to the police to master surveillance people and this is not towards public safety. this is not only false but harmful and people will not be safe update this mass surveillance and they are using this to discriminate and
8:24 am
against races or classes anden cage people who are poor. i might ask that the use of this for surveillance systems and remind you of george floyd. we don't need anymore cameras and anymore police. if you want real community safet -- >> this is the end of public comment. >> we have a motion and second >> >> roll call, please. >>clerk: [roll call] >> next item, please. >> the motion is continued as amended.
8:25 am
>> item no. 7. 7. 220748 [hearing - initiative ordinance - campaign and governmental conduct code - behested payments] sponsor: mayor hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the november 8, 2022, election, entitled "ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to modify the rules concerning behested payment solicitations, by 1) exempting >> i saw someone from the mayor's office here but i don't see him anymore. >> he is online with us. >> mr. henkel? >> good afternoon supervisors and gentlemen, i understand our time is limited, but i am here to take any questions that the supervisors may have about the ballot measure before you? >> i have no questions. i know too much about your measure, my measure, the measure of the board of supervisors unanimously passed last year in our mutual
8:26 am
endeavors to attempt to find a middle ground which i don't want to put words in team mayor's mouth seem to be going well but we will find out in the next 24-48 hours as we join the new ethics commission at 9:30 and hopefully despite their recommendation to kick the can down the road which i find mystifying, we will have an actual action taken by the ethics commission in support of one or the other or a compromised mutually agreed to version or whatever the ethics commission chooses to do, and then hopefully on or before august the fifth, the mayor will withdraw from the ballot, but
8:27 am
that's a lot of ifs. we'll see what happens. members, we have discharged our duty to hear this before law. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this. >> there is no public comment at this time.
8:28 am
>> >> roll call, please. >> [roll call] >> the motion passes. >> thank you, mr. young. >> and for those of you who are in the chambers, two things to know if you are here for the land use committee, one, is it takes the clerk's office a little while to change people's computers, and two, not at my request, the chair of the land use committee has taken pity on this supervisor and will allow me to eat lunch. so, the land use committee will convene at 2:00 p.m. >> >> this meeting is adjourned. >> >>
8:29 am
8:30 am