City and County of San Francisco Monday, February 14, 2022

>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO

THE RESCHEDULED RULES COMMITTEE FOR TODAY, VALENTINE'S DAY,

FEBRUARY 14TH, 2022. I AM THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE,

JOINED BY THE VICE CHAIR. >> -- , CAN WE HOLD FOR A MOMENT.

I AM HEARING FROM YOUR OFFICE

THAT WE MAY HAVE AN ONLINE ISSUE WITH SAN FRANCISCO GOVERNMENT T.V. NOT WORKING. IF YOU DON'T MIND PAUSING MOMENTARILY WHILE WE CHECK ON THAT.

>> TAKE YOUR TIME. >> I BELIEVE THE ISSUE IS ON SAN FRANCISCO GOVERNMENT T.V., THE ONLINE VERSION.

WHOEVER IS CHECKING ON THAT.

CHAIR PESKIN, A QUICK UPDATE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE LIVE STREAMING ON SAN FRANCISCO GOVERNMENT T.V., WE ARE GETTING NETWORK

ERRORS AND THEY ARE CHECKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY.

>> EVERYTHING IS WORKING, IT IS JUST NOT STREAMING ON OUR WEBSITE. THEY ARE ADDRESSING THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW. WE WILL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE MOMENTARILY.

>> OKAY.

>> CHAIR PESKIN, --

>> SUPERVISOR PESKIN: FEBRUARY 14TH, 2020.

DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES,

WE ARE STARTING NOW. I'M JOINED BY SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN AND SUPERVISOR CHAN.

AND YOUR CLERK IS MR. VICTOR YOUNG. DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS?

>> CLERK:   YES. THE MINUTES WILL REFLECT THE

MEMBERS OF THIS MEETING PARTICIPATED IN THIS MEETING REMOTELY. THE BOARD RECOGNIZES THAT

PUBLIC ACCESS TO CITY SERVICES IS ESSENTIAL AND INVITES PUBLIC

COMMENT IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS.

EITHER CHANNEL 76, 28, 99 AND SFGOVTV.ORG ARE STREAMING THE PUBLIC CALL-IN NUMBER ACROSS THE SCREEN. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED UP

TO TWO MINUTES TO SPEAK UNLESS

OTHERWISE STATED.

415:   655-0001.

THE MEETING ID IS 24950524358

THEN PRESS POUND AND POUND AGAIN.

BEST PRACTICES ARE TO CALL FROM

A QUIET LOCATION AND TURN DOWN

YOUR TELEVISION OR RADIO. OR YOU MAY SUBMIT PUBLIC

COMMENT TO MYSELF, VICTORYOUNG@SFGOV.ORG.

WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE SENT TO

CITY HALL, 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLET PLACE. AND JUST A WORD FOR THE

STREAMERS AT SFGOVTV.ORG.

FOR TODAY'S SESSION, YOU WILL

BE REDIRECTED TO A YOUTUBE WEBSITE FOR STREAMING SERVICES FOR THIS MEETING.

THAT CONCLUDES MY INITIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS CHRMENT THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG.

AND WE ARE JOINED BY SUPERVISOR MAR FOR THE FIRST ITEM.

MR. CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM.

>> CLERK:   YES. ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A MOTION ORDERING SUBMITTED TO THE

VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE

HELD ON JUNE 7TH, 2022, AN

ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE POLICE

CODE TO REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY

LEAVE DURING A PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE SO, DIAL STAR THREE TO LINE UP TO SPEAK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> CHAIRMAN:   THANK YOU,

MR. YOUNG. AND.

>> SUPERVISOR MAR:   SUPERVISOR

MAR DID WE HEAR THE CONTROLLER'S STATEMENT LAST WEEK?

>> SUPERVISOR MAR:   I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> CHAIRMAN:   OKAY. WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE CONTROLLER'S STATEMENT AS WE DO

WITH ALL THE ITEMS IN FRONT OF US.

MS. STEVENSON, GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING SUPERVISORS.

PEG STEVENSON FROM THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE.

I SUBMITTED A LETTER WHICH IS

IN YOUR FILE JUST PROVIDING LIKELY BASIC STAFFING COSTS

THAT WOULD COME WITH THIS MEASURE.

IN OUR LINGO THIS IS A MODERATE

COST TO GOVERNMENT AND THEN

REMINDING PEOPLE THAT THE

EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD

DEPEND ON WHERE YOURSELF AND

APPROVE A BUDGET THROUGH YOUR NORMAL PROCESSES AND FUTURE MAYORS AND BOARDS OF

SUPERVISORS TO A PARTICULAR COST. SO THAT IS TYPICALLY HOW WE ADVISE THESE MEASURES AND THAT'S WHAT OUR LETTER REFLECTS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD IN THAT WAY.

>> CHAIRMAN:   ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE? SEEING NONE.

SUPERVISOR MAR, I BELIEVE YOU

HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THIS MORNING THAT YOU'VE

CIRCULATED TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE. THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> SUPERVISOR MAR:   THANK YOU

SO MUCH, SUPERVISOR PESKIN, AND SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN.

ALSO I WANT TO THANK SUPERVISOR CHAN FOR YOUR CO-SPONSORSHIP AND YOUR SUPPORT.

SO I DO HAVE A SECOND ADDITION TO THE AMENDMENT THIS MORNING,

BUT I DID ALSO WANT TO STATE THE FIRST SET OF AMENDMENTS

INTRODUCED LAST WEEK THESE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS WERE CREATED THROUGH OUR CONTINUING ENGAGEMENT WITH LABOR AND EMPLOYER GROUPS TOWARDS THE GOAL OF FINDING THE RIGHT BALANCE OF PROTECTING AND

SUPPORTING WORKERS DURING THE

CURRENT AND FUTURE HEALTH EMERGENCIES WHILE ALSO PREVENTING UNREASONABLE BURDEN

ON OUR EMPLOYERS.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL AND SF BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES.

THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION IN ADVANCE FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT

ON THIS WITH THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE. TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE FOUR AMENDMENTS THAT WERE CIRCULATED

TO YOU AND THAT I'M HOPING THE

COMMITTEE WOULD ADOPT TODAY. THE FIRST ONE IS ON PAGE FIVE, LINE 17 TO 21.

AND FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOCATING

THE HOURS AVAILABLE TO PART-TIME WORKERS, EMPLOYERS

WILL NOW LOOK BACK AT THE HOURS

OVER THE PRIOR SIX MONTHS

RATHER THAN THE PRIOR THREE

MONTHS WITH THE LOOK-BACK

PROVISIONS IN A STATEWIDE SUPPLEMENTAL LEAD.

WE ADDED LANGUAGE TO THE OFFICE

OF LABOR ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS

TO COUNT OTHER HYPOTHETICAL FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTAL LEADS THAT EMPLOYERS MAY HAVE OFFERED

FOR THE OFFSETTERS AND,

THIRDLY, ON PAGE NINE, LINES 18 TO 22, WE SPECIFIED THAT

EMPLOYERS CAN REQUEST A

DOCTOR'S NOTE USING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY FOR AIR QUALITY TO CONFIRM THEIR STATUS

AS A MEMBER OF A VULNERABLE POPULATION AND THEN FOURTH AND

LASTLY ON PAGE 17, LINE 25, WE

ADDED THE ABILITY TO AMEND PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY LEAVE

AND SCOPE OF COVERAGE FOR AIR QUALITY EMERGENCIES BECAUSE

THIS IS THE NEW SORT OF POLICY

PROVISION IN THIS PROPOSAL. AGAIN, THANKS AGAIN, COLLEAGUES AND I REQUEST THAT YOU ADOPT

THE AMENDMENTS THAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN:   THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR MAR, AND THANK YOU FOR SHARING THOSE ON FRIDAY SO WE CAN READ THEM OVER THE WEEKEND. I AM FINE WITH THEM. WHY DON'T WE IF WE DON'T HAVE COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO

COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER ONE?

>> CLERK:   YES.

IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE DIAL STAR THREE TO BE ADDED TO THE QUEUE TO SPEAK. FOR THOSE ON HOLD, PLEASE CONTINUE TO WAIT UNTIL THE SYSTEM INDICATES YOU HAVE BEEN UNMUTED AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE 14

CALLERS ON THE LINE WITH FOUR ON THE LINE TO SPEAK.

>> CHAIRMAN:   FIRST SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>> CALLER:   HI THERE. I'M WAITING FOR A DIFFERENT AGENDA ITEM. SO I'LL GO BACK IN THE QUEUE.

THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN:   NEXT SPEAKER.

>> CALLER:   CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> CHAIRMAN:   MR. PILLPELL, PLEASE PROCEED.

>> CALLER:   I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T

KNOW THAT I RAISED MY HAND.

I'M TRYING TO JUGGLE THE TECHNOLOGY HERE.

WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE CAPTIONS ON THE YOUTUBE FEED WHICH IS

THE REDIRECT FROM FROM THE

CHANNEL ONE LIVE ITEM AND I

GUESS I'M -- I DIDN'T HAVE

ANYTHING SUBSTANTIATIVE ON ITEM ONE.

BUT I'M GUESSING THESE WILL TRIGGER CONTINUE THIS TO A SPECIAL RULES COMMITTEE MEETING

OR CONTINUE THIS TO THE 28TH. I'M TRYING TO JUGGLE ALL THE THINGS GOING ON THIS MORNING.

IT'S VERY COMPLICATED. THANKS.

>> CHAIRMAN:   NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HI, GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS. THIS IS LORI CAMAS CALLING FROM THE GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION.

I WANTED TO CALL AND THANK

SUPERVISOR MAR AND HIS STAFF FOR THE SUPER HELPFUL THAT HAVE RESULTED IN THESE AMENDMENTS AND SO WE APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

WE DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE STILL HAVE THE SIDE AND WOULD SUGGEST IF POSSIBLE WE CONTINUE TO RELOOK AT THAT SIZING. [PLEASE STAND BY]

>> IT IS EXPENSIVE TO CLEAN THE

DOCS AND MAINTAIN THE HIGH STANDARDS.

I APPRECIATE THIS ONE AMENDMENT. I ALSO APPRECIATE ANYTHING THAT

IS DONE TO HELP OUR NURSES, OUR DOCTORS, THOSE ON THE FRONT

LINES.

WE KNOW A LOT OF THEM HAVE REACHED SATURATION POINT.

TOTALLY STRESSED OUT.

SO WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO LESSEN

THEIR STRESS, WE APPRECIATE IT

AND WE THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 1. >> WE ARE DOING ONE LAST FINAL

CHECK.

THAT WAS THE LAST CALLER ON THIS MATTER. >> OKAY.

PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

COLLEAGUES, GIVEN THAT THE 21ST IS PRESIDENT'S DAY AND A

HOLIDAY, I HAVE ASKED THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THIS

COMMITTEE THE FOLLOWING DAY, THE 22ND.

I BELIEVE IT IS AT 10:00 AM.

IS THAT CORRECT,, MR. YOUNG? >> YES. THAT IS THE CORRECT REQUEST. MAY I ASK IF WE CAN CONTINUE THE MATTER TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR

WITH THE INTENT TO SCHEDULE

WHILE I WORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH ALL THE OTHER BODIES? >> ABSOLUTELY. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO LET

THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THE NEXT

MEETING IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO BE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY

22ND AT 10:00 AM.

AS A TECHNICAL MATTER, WE WILL CONTINUE AFTER WE MAKE AMENDMENTS THIS ITEM TO THE CALL

OF THE CHAIR.

PLEASE, AS IT RELATES TO THIS AND OTHER MEASURES ON THIS

AGENDA, KNOW THAT IT WILL BE HEARD ALMOST CERTAINLY ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND AT 10:00 AM. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE

A MOTION TO ADOPT SUPERVISOR MAR MAR'S AFOREMENTIONED AND DISCUSSED AMENDMENT.

ON THAT MOTION, A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> YES, ON THAT MOTION...

[ROLL CALL] >> THE MOTION PASSES WITHOUT

OBJECTION. >> THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AS

AMENDED TO THE CALL OF THE

CHAIR, NOTING THAT IT WILL LIKELY, ALMOST CERTAINLY BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 22ND AT

10:00 AM. ON THAT MOTION, A VEHICLE,

PLEASE...

[ROLL CALL] -- ON THAT MOTION A ROLL CALL, PLEASE THIS.

[ROLL CALL] THE MOTION PASSES WITHOUT

OBJECTION. >> I WILL NOTE, COLLEAGUES AND

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THAT ANY ITEM THAT WE TAKE ACTION ON ON FEBRUARY 22ND CAN BE FORWARDED

TO THE BOARD IN THE NORMAL

COURSE OF BUSINESS, NOT AS A COMMITTEE REPORT TO BE HEARD ON

MARCH 1ST WHICH IS THE FIRST DAY -- LAST DAY FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO PUT INITIATIVE ORDINANCES ON THE BALLOT. I WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT SO

EVERYONE IS AWARE. PLEASE READ ITEM TWO THROUGH

FIVE TOGETHER.

>> YES, ITEM TWO IS A MOTION SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS OF AN

ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7TH, 2022 AMENDING THE REFUSE

COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

ORDINANCE TO REPLACE A HEARING FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT

THE CONTROLLER AND ADMINISTRATOR REGULARLY MONITOR THE RATES AND

APPEAR BEFORE THE REFUSE RATE

BOARD TO RECOMMEND ADJUSTMENTS. ITEM THREE IS MOTION SUBMITTED

TO THE VOTERS TO BE HELD ON JUNE 7TH, 2022 AND AMENDING THE REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL

ORDINANCE TO RESTRUCTURE THE REFUSE RATE SETTING PROCESS SHOULD REPLACE HEARINGS BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT THE

CONTROLLER, AS REFUSE RATE ADMINISTRATOR, REGULARLY MONITOR

THE RATES AND APPEAR FOR THE REFUSE RATE BOARD TO RECOMMEND RATE ADJUSTMENTS. ITEM FOUR IS A HEARING TO

PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE SUBMITTED

BY SUPERVISORS TO THE VOTERS FOR

THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 ELECTION ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ORDINANCE TO RESTRUCTURE THE

RATE SETTING PROCESS. ITEM FIVE IS A HEARING TO

CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE

I PROPOSED BY VOTERS FOR THE

JUNE 7TH, 2022 ELECTION ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL ORDINANCE TO RESTRUCTURE THE

REFUSE RATE SETTING PROCESS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES.

WHEN I SAY THANK YOU,

COLLEAGUES, I AM REFERRING NOT ONLY TO SUPERVISOR CHAN AND

MANDELMAN ON THIS PANEL, BUT EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE MAYOR AS IT RELATES TO THIS SOMEWHAT

MONUMENTAL UNDERTAKING. CANDIDLY THIS IS THE CULMINATION

OF A TOTAL CHOICE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT

THE PANDEMIC.

IN MANY WAYS THIS MEASURE, AND

ACTUALLY THE MEASURE THAT WE ARE

CLOSING TODAY'S MEETING WITH, IT

AIMS TO BOOKEND A YEAR'S LONG CONTINUING TO UNRAVEL CORRUPTION PRICES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

THAT CORRUPTION CRISIS HAS BEEN,

I THINK WE ALL KNOW, INCREDIBLY COSTLY.

AS IT RELATES TO RECOLOGY, THAT

COST HAS BEEN BORNE BY THE RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES OF SAN FRANCISCO TO

THE TUNE OF AT LEAST $94.5 MILLION, WHICH,

THANKFULLY, HAS BEEN REFUNDED. YOU MIGHT ASK WHY WE ARE CONSIDERING FOREIGN MEASURES. HOPEFULLY THIS ENTIRE EPISODE

WILL END WITH ONE MEASURE BEING

ON THE BALLOT. THE MEASURES BEFORE US REVISIT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE

THAT WE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE 1932 ORDINANCE WHICH HAS

BEEN LARGELY UNCHANGED IN OUR

LAWS FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS, 90 YEARS TO BE EXACT. IT WAS AMENDED A COUPLE OF TIMES

IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES. IT CAN ONLY BE AMENDED OR

RESCINDED AT THE BALLOT. THERE HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF

UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO REVOKE THE 1932 ORDINANCE ON THE

BALANCE -- ON THE BALLOT WITH

PROPOSITION A IN 2012.

ALL OF THESE MEASURES AMEND THE LONG-HELD MONOPOLY ON WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO AND

CREATE A MORE DYNAMIC REGULATORY OVERSIGHT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

THE CITY AND OUR COMPANY. LET ME EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THERE ARE FOREIGN MEASURES AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT GOD IS HERE.

OVER A YEAR AGO, AS THE

REVELATIONS OF OVERCHARGING AND THE CORRUPTION IN AND AROUND THE

RATEMAKING PROCESS AS RELATED TO

MOHAMMED NEW ROUX, UNDER THE 1932 ORDINANCE, THE DIRECTOR OF

PUBLIC WORKS ULTIMATELY ISSUES SOME ORDERS.

AT THAT TIME, TOGETHER WITH MAYOR BREED, WE CONVENED A WORKING GROUP. YOU WILL HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE

ABOUT THAT FROM THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. IT SPENT THE LAST YEAR LOOKING

AT THE CURRENT REGULATORY SCHEME AND EXPLORED OTHER OPTIONS.

ULTIMATELY, WE LANDED ON A WELL THOUGHT OUT AND REASONABLE ORDINANCE THAT IS ITEM 220052 IN

THIS PACKET, WHICH WE BROUGHT TO

RECOLOGY ON DECEMBER 9TH. WE GAVE THEM AN ADVANCED COPY OF

AN EARLY DRAFT TO DISCUSS WITH

THEM THE WORKING GROUP WHICH HAD

A BROAD GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS RANGING FROM THE BUILDING OWNERS

AND MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION TO REPRESENTATIVES OF TENANT'S INTEREST, TO THE APARTMENT

ASSOCIATION. THEY DID NOT, BY DESIGN, INCLUDE

RECOLOGY.

BUT AS THAT GROUP AND THE CITY'S

INTERNAL GROUP RUN BY THE

CONTROLLER'S OFFICE CAME TO A CONSENSUS, WE BROUGHT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO RECOLOGY.

RECOLOGY EXPRESSED A NUMBER OF

CONCERNS AND WE COMMITTED TO CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS WITH RECOLOGY.

UNFORTUNATELY, AND I HAVE NEVER

ACTUALLY SEEN THIS BY A CORPORATION OR ANYBODY THAT I

HAVE NEGOTIATED WITH IN THE

ALMOST 20 YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER ON THIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, RATHER THAN

NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, RECOLOGY, 11 DAYS LATER DECIDED TO COLLECT SIGNATURES FOR THEIR

OWN ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD NOT

ALLOW ANY FUTURE AMENDMENT BY THE CITY BY AND THROUGH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE MAYOR.

AND THAT RESULTED IN MY COMING

FORWARD WITH THE NEXT ITEM THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN CALLED, FILE

NUMBER 22053 WHICH WOULD PUT

THEIR FRANCHISE OUT TO BID UPON PASSAGE BY THE VOTERS, AND ALSO

WOULD LEAD TO AN INTRODUCTION AS

ALLOWED BY THE CHARTER TO -- TWO

IDENTICAL MEASURES DIRECTLY TO

THE BALLOT. THANK YOU TWO SUPERVISORS CHAN

AND MANDELMAN FOR SIGNING ON TO THOSE, ALONG WITH SUPERVISORS RONEN AND WALTON.

HOPEFULLY ON THE FIRST DAY OF

MARCH WE WOULD DRAW OUR SIGNATURES FROM THOSE TWO INSTRUMENTS, WHICH ARE THE

HEARINGS THAT ARE ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE ON TODAY'S CALENDAR, BUT

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO OVER BOTH ITEMS.

I HAVE A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS TO THE FULL BOARD.

I WISH IT WEREN'T THIS WAY, BUT BASED ON RECOLOGY'S BEHAVIOUR IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY, I DO NOT TRUST THEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN

LEVERAGE UNTIL THE END. WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS FROM COLLEAGUES, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO THANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY WHO HAS

DONE AN EXTRAORDINARY JOB OF

DEFINING WHAT I WAS THINKING AND WORKING WITH FOR THE TASK FORCE. I WANT TO THANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE

BEEN ROSENFIELD AND HIS TEAM AND OTHERS IN THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE FOR DOING ALL OF THE HARD WORK AND ANALYSIS TO GET US HERE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE CHIEF OF

STAFF FOR THEIR HANDS-ON PARTICIPATION AND HELP ALL ALONG

THE WAY, AND IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO

NATASHA FROM THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE WHO CAN RUN US THROUGH

ALL OF THE HIGH POINTS OF THE LEGISLATION AND THEN,

COLLEAGUES, I WILL SPEAK TO A NUMBER OF PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD

AMENDMENTS.

WITH THAT, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR.

GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS NATASHA.

I AM IN THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE. THERE IS AN ECHO.

MAYBE SUPERVISOR PESKIN, GO ON MUTE. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I WILL ASSUME IT IS OKAY TO SHARE MY SCREEN.

I HAVE A FEW SLIDES TO GO THROUGH HERE.

AS THE SUPERVISOR MENTIONED,

EARLIER IN 2021 THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE WORKED WITH SUPERVISOR

PESKIN AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO

UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE

KEY CONCERNS PARTICULARLY AROUND

RESIDENTIAL RATES. THESE WERE OUR GUIDING QUESTIONS AROUND ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. DOES THE PUBLIC TRULY UNDERSTAND

HOW THE PROCESS IS MANAGED? WHAT IS THE QUALITY OF SERVICE?

IS A COST-EFFECTIVE, DOES IT MEET OUR STATED ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS, OUR PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS, AND ARE THE RATES THE CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING APPROPRIATE AND FAIR FOR RESIDENTIAL REFUSE SERVICE? THESE WERE THE QUESTIONS THAT WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE EXISTING

SYSTEM AND HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES. SOME OF OUR FINDINGS ARE THE

RATESETTING TIMEFRAME MAY BE TOO LONG TO CORRECTLY ESTIMATE THE COST. THERE IS AN AD HOC NATURE TO THIS. EVERY FOUR TO FIVE YEARS THERE IS A RATE SITTING PROCESS.

STAFF HAVE TO DROP WHAT THEY ARE

DOING AND RELEARN AND BUILD EXPERTISE. THE RATE CALCULATIONS THEMSELVES

ARE VERY COMPLICATED. THEY ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE METHODOLOGY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT RATES ARE BEING

PAID ACTUALLY MATCH REVENUES AND EXPENSES.

ALSO A LACK OF ONGOING

MONITORING. THERE'S LOW PUBLIC CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE INDEPENDENT AUDITS. THERE IS AN ONGOING MODERATING WHICH ARE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CUSTOMER SERVICE GOALS AND THE RATE BOARD IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE MONITORING OF THE RATESETTING PROCESS. AS THE SUPERVISOR MENTIONED,

THIS MEASURE DOES DATE BACK TO 1932 WHICH LIMITS THE CITY'S

ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM WHEN ISSUES ARE IDENTIFIED. THE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE YOU

TODAY WOULD ESTABLISH THE CONTROLLER AS THE REFUSE RATE ADMINISTRATOR.

A TEAM IN THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTERING THE RATESETTING

PROCESS AND PROPOSING RATES TO THE RATE BOARD. THIS GROUP WOULD WORK WITH

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN PUBLIC WORKS, IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT TO COME UP WITH

THOSE PROPOSED RATES FOR THE RATE BOARD TO TAKE AND REVIEW,

LISTEN TO, AND APPROVED. THAT NEW GROUP WOULD ALSO DO ONGOING FINANCIAL AND

PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF THE RESIDENTIAL REFUSE PROVIDER FOR

RIGHT NOW IN THE ANNUAL BALANCING OF EXPENSES, REVENUE,

PERFORMANCE MONITORING WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

THE RATE BOARD MEMBERSHIPS AND RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD CHANGE SO

IN ORDER TO ENSURE FULL TRANSPARENCY AND ANY PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THE

CONTROLLER WOULD NOT BE ON THE BOARD ANYMORE AND WE WOULD ADD A

RATEPAYER REPRESENTATIVE.

THE RATE BOARD WOULD ALSO PROACTIVELY APPROVED RATE

APPLICATIONS AND ALSO OVERSEE ONGOING FINANCIAL AND PERFORMANCE REPORTING.

AS PART OF THAT, THE BOARD WOULD CONDUCT AN ANNUAL FINANCIAL

AUDIT, INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDIT WITH A CONTRACTOR THAT THEY HAVE SELECTED. AND THE MEASURE ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE.

THE MEASURE DOES AUTHORIZE THE REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL RATES AND ALLOWS CHANGES TO THE

ORDINANCE WITH A BOARD SUPER MAJORITY AND MAYORAL APPROVAL. THAT IS THE END OF MY

PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ALONG

THE WAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM

COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THANK YOU

AGAIN, SUPERVISORS MANDELMAN AND CHAN FOR YOUR CONSTANT SUPPORT AND HELP.

I WANT TO THANK AND ACKNOWLEDGE

THE DAY TO DAY MEN AND WOMEN WHO

DO THE WORK AT RECOLOGY. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT THAT I HAVE

HAD A VERY UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THE TRACKS AND COLLECT OUR

REFUSE AND I WANT TO SAY THAT

THEY HAVE BEEN BURDENED BY THE CORRUPTION SCANDAL.

IT IS NOT OF THEIR MAKING AND

THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO CARRY OUT

THEIR DUTIES, THEY'RE VERY

DIFFICULT DUTIES EVERYDAY WITH PRIDE AND CARE.

I REALLY WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

EMPLOYEES, ALMOST 1,000 OF THEM

FROM THE TEAMSTERS. COLLEAGUES YOU ARE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM THE TEAMSTERS

LOCAL 350 FROM JOHN BOUCHARD,

TODAY, THIS MORNING, IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKING.

I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS HELP AND SUPPORT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS THE CONSUMER.

I HATE TO USE THE WIN WIN TERM,

BUT THIS IS A WIN FOR THE CONSUMERS AND A WIN FOR SAN

FRANCISCO RESIDENTS AND IT IS ALSO A WIN FOR COMMERCIAL RATEPAYERS AS THEY HAVE

HISTORICALLY NOT BEEN REGULATED UNDER THE 1932 ORDINANCE AND

THIS ORDINANCE DOES PROVIDE THE

ABILITY FOR THE CITY TO REGULATE COMMERCIAL RATES AND RESIDENTIAL RATES. TO PUT IT SIMPLY, IT IS TRASH DAY IN SAN FRANCISCO AND IT IS

TIME FOR US TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. AS TO -- SORRY, THAT IS LOW

HANGING FRUIT.

AS TO THE AMENDMENTS, TO BOTH

FILE 22 AND 53, ON PAGE 3 OF

BOTH MEASURES, STRIKE THE WORD RESIDENTIAL IN FRONT OF REFUSE SERVICE BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLES

SET FORTH AS A COST-EFFECTIVE

SERVICE STANDARD, THEY APPLIED TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICE ON PAGE 4, INSERT LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF REFUSE.

IT INCLUDES RECYCLABLES AND COMPOSTABLE'S AND KRAUT CROP -- AND TRASH BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE

WASTE MATERIALS. AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN CHAPTER 19 OF THE ENVIRONMENT CODE, WHICH MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

THESE WERE NOT THOUGHTS.

THIS IS A COMMONSENSE UPDATE.

ON PAGE 5 OF THOSE MEASURES,

AROUND LINE 10, INSERT THE WORD,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND

THEN AT LINE 11, MOVE THE WORD DAILY AND ADD AT THE END OF THAT SENTENCE, AT A FREQUENCY IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THIS IS REFLECTING REALITY RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT OF

SERVICE THAT PEOPLE NEED.

AT PAGE 6 OF THOSE MEASURES, AND I WILL NOTE FOR MY COLLEAGUES, HERE IS WHEN THE MEASURE STARTS

TO DEVIATE, JUST SLIGHTLY, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CLARITY TO THE RATE

BOARD REGARDING WHAT IT MAY

CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING AN APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO MINUTES MIGHT -- MINIMIZE DISRUPTIONS IN

SERVICE, I WANT TO SHOW A

CERTIFICATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS APPOINTED ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVES TO A

BOARD THAT MAY SUFFICE TO MAKE THE SHOWING.

IN FILE 52 PAGE 6, LINES 14 THROUGH 18, THE SECTION REGARDING CONSTRAINTS ON THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH

AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PERMITS THAT

ARE ALREADY BEING ADEQUATELY SERVED AND WE ARE MAKING SIMILAR

CLEANUP AMENDMENTS IN THE FILE

ENDING IN 53 AT PAGE 7, LINE TWO, INSERTING THE LANGUAGE THAT

IF THE DIRECTOR FINDS THERE IS INADEQUATE SERVICE, WHICH SPECIFIES THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC

HEALTH IS AN ENTITY CHARGED WITH DETERMINING WHETHER INADEQUATE SERVICES EXIST, WHICH WOULD WARRANT MODIFICATION OR REPLICATION OF THE PERMIT.

ON PAGE 8 OF BOTH MEASURES, INSERTING LANGUAGE THAT THE REFUSE RATE ADMINISTRATOR, THE

CONTROLLER, IN THE NEW SCHEME, IN THE CONTEXT PROPOSING NEW RATES, MONITORING THE FINANCIAL OPERATION AND PERFORMANCE OF REFUSE COLLECTORS, PERFORMING STUDIES AND ADD INVESTIGATIONS AND ADVISING THE RATE BOARD, MAY

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THIS IS THE NEW LANGUAGE, ANY APPLICABLE SERVICE STANDARDS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CALL IS ESTABLISHED BY LAW.

AND PAGE 9, FILE 52 AND PAGE 10

OF FILE 53, RECOMMEND AUTHORIZE WITH THE REFUSE RATE BOARD AS

AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM AUDITS

THAT ARE REGULATED WITH REVENUES

AND IN SUBSECTION SIX, AT AUDITS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPLIED TO THE REFUSE CORRECTORS JUST COLLECTORS AND REFUSE DISPOSERS. ON PAGE 12 OF THE FILE, ENDING

IN 52 AND PAGE 13 ENDING IN 53, INCREASING THE AMENDMENT THRESHOLD FOR THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS TO AMEND SECTION 290 OF THE HEALTH CODE FROM SEVEN

SUPERVISORS DOWN TO EIGHT SUPERVISORS. AND BOTH MEASURES WE ARE

PROVIDING THEM TO ADOPT LEGISLATION CONCERNING PERMITS

THAT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED TO AFFECT OR CHANGE THE AUTHORITY THAT PUBLIC HEALTH

CURRENTLY HAS WITH ABSENCE OF LEGISLATION WITH REGARDS TO ABSENCE OR RENEWAL.

COLLEAGUES, THAT CONCLUDES THE AMENDMENTS.

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, LET'S ODOM ITEMS TWO THROUGH FIVE.

SUPERVISOR CHAN? >> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING

ME ALONG ON THIS JOURNEY TO

REFORM A CRITICAL SERVICE FOR

THE ENTIRE CITY, BOTH FOR THE RESIDENT AND FOR THE CITY ITSELF.

IT IS MONUMENTAL WORK.

I LEARNED A LOT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BOTH STRATEGICALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THIS REFORM AND GET ON THE BALLOT IS NO SMALL FEAT. I THANK YOU FOR THAT. MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THE CRITICAL WORK THAT YOU HAVE PUT IN TO

TRULY MAKE THIS A BETTER PROCESS PROCESS. AND CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF SERVICE.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PROVIDING THE CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO THIS MANAGEMENT SERVICE. WE'RE NOT DOUBTING THE QUALITY OF IT. IS MORE ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF RATESETTING AND HOW TO BE

EFFICIENT AND ALSO CATCH ERRORS IN TIME. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK ON THIS.

I WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP

BUT ALSO THANK EVERYBODY THAT

HAS BEEN PUTTING THEIR HARD WORK, INCLUDING THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE AND MANY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THAT YOU PUT

TOGETHER FOR THE TASK FORCE AND

PUTTING THEIR EFFORT INTO THIS REFORM. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHAN. I SINCERELY APPRECIATE IT.

I HAVE NOT ACTUALLY ASKED THE

CONTROLLER TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENT ON THESE ITEMS. MY BAD.

MISS STEVENSON, IF YOU WOULD

LIKE TO DO SO NOW.

>> WE CAN SPEAK TO THESE.

WE HAVE ESTIMATED THAT THIS

WOULD BE A TEAM OF 2-4 PEOPLE IN

THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, WITH OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE ARE ESTIMATING IT IS ROUGHLY

500,002 $1 MILLION A YEAR.

>> MISS STEVENSON, IS THAT MODERATE?

IN YOUR LEXICON, WHAT IS THAT? HOW DOES THAT SCORE? >> MODERATE IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. SO WITH THAT, SEEING NO OTHER

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LET'S

GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS TO THROUGH FIVE. >> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT

ON ITEMS 2-5 SHOULD CALL 415655

4156550001.

THE MEETING ID IS 249-50524358 THEN PRESS POUND AND POUND AGAIN. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, PLEASE DIAL STAR THREE TO LINE UP TO

SPEAK. FOR THOSE ON HOLD, CONTINUE WAITING UNTIL THE SYSTEM INDICATES YOU HAVE BEEN ON MUTED

AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR COMMENT.

WE HAVE 16 CALLERS ON THE LINE WITH THREE IN LINE TO SPEAK.

>> FIRST SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISORS, YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY

COMPLICATED SITUATION.

SO THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE HAS

BEEN IN THE COCKPIT FAST ASLEEP

ALL THESE YEARS.

AND IN TRANSPARENCY THAT YOU

WANT TO ESTABLISH, WHAT ROLE DO THE WORKERS PLAY? THE COMPANY IS OWNED BY THE

WORKERS. IS THAT INPUT THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TO YOU BY THE WORKERS, BE

AT THE TEAMSTERS OR OTHER UNIONS UNIONS.

THAT IS QUESTION NUMBER 1 WHAT

ROLE WILL WE CONSTITUENTS OR

RESIDENTS PLAY. NOBODY GAVE YOU THE PERMISSION

TO SPEAK FOR US. FOR ME, YOU ARE BEHIND. THIS NONSENSE HAS BEEN GOING ON BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL BEEN LOOKING THE OTHER WAY.

WHAT ROLE WILL THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENT PLAY THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE HAS BEEN FAST ASLEEP AT THE COCKPIT WHEN

IT COMES TO CORRUPTION. IN FACT,, IF YOU ARE A WHISTLEBLOWER AND GO TO THE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE, THEY DON'T

GIVE A DAMN THAT POSITION IS THEY ARE THERE TO SAVE THE CITY

AND THEREFORE, THEY ADHERE TO THE NORMS OF BEING A

WHISTLEBLOWER, THAT WILL PUT THEM IN SOME LIABILITY WHEN IT

COMES TO HELPING THE WHISTLEBLOWERS. >> YOUR TIME HAS ELAPSED.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. >> HELLO, SUPERVISORS.

I READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT HOW THE

BUILDING THAT RECOLOGY SOLD TO AMAZON THEY BOUGHT WITH RATEPAYER MONEY, THEREFORE THE

RATEPAYER SHOULD BE REIMBURSED, IN THAT SAME VEIN, I'M WONDERING

WHY RECOLOGY -- IT IS ALL PAID FOR BY THE RATEPAYERS AND THEY

ARE THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE

FOR ALL THE ADVICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. I'M REALLY CONFUSED ON WHY THEY ARE ALLOWED TO KEEP DOING THESE THINGS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING AND THANK YOU

FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT ON THIS MATTER.

I AM FROM TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350. WE REPRESENT 900 REFUSE WORKERS

IN SAN FRANCISCO AND WE ARE IN

FULL SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THEY WOULD HELP PROTECT OUR

MEMBERS, THE RATEPAYERS AND THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO FROM FURTHER CORRUPTION. MORE OVERSIGHT IN THE RATE SETTING PROCESS IS CLEARLY

NEEDED AND THESE CHANGES PROVIDE THAT WHILE CREATING A MORE

TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR ALL INVOLVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT AGAIN AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ALONG THE WAY.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?

>> PLEASE PROCEED. >> GREAT.

COULD I GET A 32ND WARNING. GOOD MORNING.

ON THESE ISSUES, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO ANYONE AT RECOLOGY ON THIS AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO

REACH THEM IN MONTHS.

THE ISSUES WITH THE FORMER DPW DIRECTOR AND A RATE MISCALCULATION THAT RESULTED IN A REBATE TO CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN CONFLATED HERE. [PLEASE STANDBY FOR CAPTIONER

SWITCH]

>> SUPERVISOR PESKIN: -- CONTINUES TO INVESTIGATE

WHETHER THERE HAVE BEEN

ADDITIONAL OVERCHARGES.

-- WHEN THEY MANAGE TO GET ALL

THE INFORMATION THEY NEED FROM RECOLOGY, WHICH HAS BEEN SLOW

TO COME, BUT RECENTLY, LAST

WEEK, THE CONTROLLER SAID SOME

ENCOURAGING WORDS WITH REGARDS

TO RECOLOGY LAST WEEK, SO

HOPEFULLY, THE CONTROLLER WILL

BE ABLE TO FINISH HIS WORK AND ISSUE HIS REPORT.

WHEN IT COMES TO FINAL WORDS ON

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT.

LET ME SAY CONCLUESIVELY THAT

THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE DRAFTING OF THE DOCUMENTS

THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, AND WITH

THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION TO FILE THE LAST TWO ITEMS AND CONTINUE TWO AND THREE TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

AND MR. YOUNG, ARE WE NOW CERTAIN THAT THAT MEETING WILL

BE ON FEBRUARY 22 AT 10:00 A.M.?

>> CLERK:   I HAVEN'T CHECKED LOGISTICS.

I WOULD STILL CONTINUE TO REQUEST THAT YOU CONTINUE TO

THE CALL WITH THE CAVEAT THAT

WE WILL MOST LIKELY MEET ON

FEBRUARY 22 AT 10:00 A.M.

>> SUPERVISOR PESKIN:   OKAY.

SO IT IS A TRIPARTHEID MOTION

TO AMEND THE FILES IN 5-2 AND

5-3 AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, TO

FILE ITEMS 4 AND 5, AND TO

CONTINUE THE ITEMS 2 AND 3 AS AMENDED TO THE CALL OF THE

CHAIR, NOTING THAT THEY WILL

MOST CERTAINLY BE HEARD AT THE

NEXT MEETING. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>> CLERK:   YES. ON THAT MOTION -- [ROLL CALL]

>> CLERK:   THE MOTION PASSES WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> SUPERVISOR PESKIN:   NEXT

ITEM, PLEASE.

>> CLERK:   ITEM NUMBER 6 IS A

HEARING TO CONSIDER THE

PROPOSES INITIATIVE ORDINANCE

SUBMITTED TO SUPERVISORS ENTITLED HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSES INITIATIVE

ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY FOUR OR MORE SUPERVISORS TO THE VOTERS

FOR THE JUNE 7 RNGS 2022 ELECTION, ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO ESTABLISH THE OFFICE OF THE VICTIM AND WITNESS RIGHTS,

AND TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

RELATED TO LIMITING THE ECONOMIC, FAMILIAL, AND OTHER HARMS RESULTING FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND A PILOT PROGRAM

TO PROVIDE CIVIL COUNSEL IN SUCH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELATED PROCEEDINGS THROUGH LEGAL

SERVICES AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   SUPERVISOR

CHAN, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS? THERE WAS A HEARING SUBMITTED

TO THE CHARTER BY FOUR OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THE PRIMARY SPONSOR IS

SUPERVISOR STEFANI, AND THE COSPONSORS ARE MANDELMAN, SAFAI, AND HANEY, AND IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME,

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF

FOR SUPERVISOR STEFANI.

SUPERVISOR CHAN, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ALTHOUGH I DON'T SEE YOUR NAME ON THE SCREEN.

GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAN:   MY APOLOGIES, BUT I I DO HAVE QUESTIONS,

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD

FOR MR. MULLEN TO GO AHEAD AND DO HIS PRESENTATION.

MY QUESTIONS ARE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   OKAY.

ANDY MULLEN, THE FLOOR IS YOURS. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR PESKIN, AND

SUPERVISORS MANDELMAN AND CHAN FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.

I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION, AND THEN, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. I WANT TO START THIS PRESENTATION BY TALKING ABOUT THE NEED. THE NEED IS VERY ACUTE.

APPROXIMATELY 20,000 TIMES PER QUARTER, A SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME ACCORDING TO POLICE

DEPARTMENT DATA, AND AS HIGH AS

THAT IS, IT'S PROBABLY AN UNDERCOUNT. THE ESTIMATE BY SOCIAL SCIENCES IS THAT 40% OF CRIMES ARE REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT,

AND ONLY ABOUT 3,000 OF THE REPORTED INCIDENTS RESULT IN AN

ARREST, AND CHARGES ARE FILED

IN ABOUT 1,000 CASES.

THE VICTIMS OF CRIME IN SAN FRANCISCO ARE PRIMARY WOMEN AND

PEOPLE OF COLOR.

IN 2020, PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE

VICTIMED IN 73% OF AGGRAVATED

ASSAULTS, 73% OF BATTERY CASES,

83% OF ROBBERIES, 63% OF BURGLARIES, 88% OF HOMICIDES,

AND 66% OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS.

IN PARTICULAR, THE NEED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WAS PARTICULARLY ACUTE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. DURING THAT PERIOD, WE SAW

CALLS TO CRISIS LINES INCREASE BY ALMOST 40%.

CALLS TO THE COOPERATIVE

RESTRAINING ORDER CLINIC WHICH

PROVIDES SOME PRO BONO WORK FOR

PEOPLE, INCREASED BY 66%, AND THE TURN AWAY PERCENT FOR PEOPLE SEEKING EMERGENCY

SHELTER WAS 79%.

THERE WAS ALSO A 79% DECREASE

IN CASES SOLVED BY INJURE TRIAL

FOR PEOPLE SEEKING OR CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE.

SERVICES FOR VICTIMS ARE SPREAD OUT ACROSS VARIOUS CITY AGENCIES AND OFTEN REQUIRE

SIGNIFICANT LEGWORK ON THE PART

OF VICTIMS IN ORDER TO ACCESS.

THERE ARE VICTIM SERVICES

PROGRAMMING CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE

DEVELOPMENT, AND THE BULK OF

THESE SERVICES SORT OF SIT AT THE BACK END OF LENGTHY LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCESSES, MEANING

THAT YOU TYPICALLY NEED -- NOT

ALWAYS, BUT TYPICALLY NEED AN

INCIDENT, A POLICE REPORT, AN

ARREST, PARTICULARLY AN

INCIDENT BEFORE YOU CAN ACCESS ANY OF THESE SERVICES.

SO THE SITUATION BEFORE YOU TODAY AIMS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. IT DOES TWO THINGS.

IT CREATES THE OFFICE OF VICTIM

AND WITNESS SERVICE RIGHTS. I'LL BEGIN BY BRIEFLY EXPLAINING THE OFFICE OF VICTIM

AND WITNESS SERVICES.

IT WILL CREATE A VICTIM-FIRST MODEL FOR SERVICES IN SAN FRANCISCO BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT ALL OF THESE

VICTIMS OF CRIME NEED YET.

WHAT THIS INITIATIVE WILL DO IS IT WILL CREATE AN OFFICE OUTSIDE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO

MEET VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

WHERE THEY ARE, AT THE FRONT END OF VICTIMIZATION.

THE MANDATES IN THIS INITIATIVE THAT THIS OFFICE WILL HAVE TO

MEET AT THE OUTSET SHOULD IT

PASS, IS THAT THEY WILL BE MANDATED TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES TO

VICTIM AND WITNESSES, INCLUDING CULTURALLY COMPETENT AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE

SERVICES, INCLUDING TRANSLATION

SERVICES, INCLUDING ENSURING

TRANSLATION SERVICES ARE

READILY AVAILABLE.

AND THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO MEET THAT MANDATE. ONE, STREAMLINE AND STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING OFFERING OF

SERVICES, AND THEY NEED TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES.

AND SO ON THE FIRST PRONG, CONSOLIDATE AND STREAMLINE EXISTING SERVICES. ONE YEAR AFTER THE APPOINTMENT

AND PASSAGE OF A DIRECTOR, THE

DIRECTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALL THE SERVICES OFFERED TO WITNESSES

AND PROPOSING A PLAN FOR HOW TO CONSOLIDATE AND STREAMLINE

THEM, AND THAT PROPOSAL WILL

HELP FORM THE OFFICE AND HELP THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

DETERMINE WHAT FUNDING WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SERVICE.

THE OTHER PURPOSE IS TO MANDATE NEW SERVICES.

THEY WILL SURVEY ALL VICTIM AND WITNESSES AND GET QUALITY AND

FEEDBACK ON ALL THE SERVICES

PROVIDED AND IT WILL BE USED TO

GENERATE A WORK PLAN.

THE REASON THIS INITIATIVE CAME

INTO EFFECT WAS BECAUSE WE

HEARD A WOMAN WAS A WITNESS TO

A PRETTY VIOLENT GUN SHOOTING.

BECAUSE SHE WASN'T A VICTIM,

SHE WAS TREATED AS A WITNESS TO

A CRIME EVEN THOUGH SHE FELT

THAT SHE WAS A VICTIM. THE OTHER PRONG AND MANDATE

FROM THIS OFFICE WILL BE TO

HOUSE AND HELP VICTIMS OF

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REMAINS A PROBLEM IN SAN FRANCISCO.

VICTIMS ARE PRIMARILY WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR.

DESPITE BEING ONLY 5% OF SAN

FRANCISCO'S POPULATION, AFRICAN

AMERICANS ARE 29% OF THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN

THE CITY, AND, OF COURSE, THE

VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE CASES WERE WOMEN.

THIS OFFICE WILL HOUSE AND HOLD

A RIGHT TO CIVIL COUNSEL FOR

VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE [INDISCERNIBLE] CUT, CHILD

SUPPORT, MARCY'S LAW, ALIMONY, APPLYING FOR SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS, HEALTH CARE, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING.

WE ESTIMATE IN THE EARLY YEARS

THERE WILL BE ABOUT 500 TO 800 CLIENTS, AND SERVICES WILL COST

THE CITY FOR THE CIVIL COUNSEL

PIECE ALONE, BETWEEN $1 MILLION TO $3 MILLION, SUBJECT TO

FUNDING BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

STUDIES BY THE ROBIN HOOD

FOUNDATION INDICATES THAT THAT

PROVIDES $2 MILLION TO $3

MILLION BACK TO THE CITY, AND

THIS MEASURE WAS CRAFTS IN COLLABORATION WITH A DIVERSE GLOUP

GROUP OF PROVIDERS, INCLUDING

THE JUSTICE AND DIVERSITY

CENTER, JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES, A.P.I. LEGAL OUTREACH, THE BRADY CAMPAIGN, THE SAN FRANCISCO COALITION AGAINST

HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THE AMERICAN INDIAN CULTURAL DISTRICT, AND THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR RIGHTS CIVIL COUNSEL, AND THAT

IS THE END OF MY PREPARED REMARKS, SUPERVISORS, AND I'M

HAPPY TO TAKE ANY AND ALL

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   THANK YOU, MR. MULLEN. WHY DON'T WE GO TO SUPERVISOR

CHAN, AND THEN, I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS.

SUPERVISOR CHAN?

>> SUPERVISOR CHAN:   THANK YOU, CHAIR PESKIN.

MR. MULLEN, I THINK MY QUESTION IS JUST A POINT OF

CLARIFICATION AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND -- LIKE, JUST HELP ME -- YOU KNOW, THE DETAILS

ABOUT THE OFFICE, YOU KNOW, ESTABLISHING THIS OFFICE AND THE LOGISTICS AROUND IT. AND THEN, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANSWERS, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND

BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD TAKE AN ORDINANCE TO CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THE SERVICES.

BUT MY -- MY FIRST QUESTION IS CURRENTLY, I AGREE MANY

DIFFERENT SERVICES EXIST.

HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE SERVICES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST? >> WE DIDN'T WANT TO TURN OUT THE LIGHTS IN ANY OFFICE BEFORE WE HAD TURNED ON THE LIGHTS ON

A NEW, HOPEFULLY BETTER, HOME

FOR MANY OF THESE FUNCTIONS.

SO THIS INITIATIVE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE CREATION OF A DIRECTOR, AND IT REQUIRES THE

DIRECTOR TO COME UP WITH A

SERVICE CONSOLIDATION AND

STREAMLINING PLAN A YEAR AFTER ENACTMENT.

AND SHOULD THAT BE ANY IMPACT

TO SHARP, IT WOULD BE ON THAT PLAN, AND IT WOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

THE REAL GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE

SHARP'S SERVICES, SHOULD SHARP

MOVE INTO THESE OFFICES, WE'LL

HAVE PLENTY OF CHANCE TO

DISCUSS THAT AND ANY OTHER SERVICES MOVING INTO THIS OFFICE. BUT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT NOT

TO CLOSE DOWN SHARP BEFORE SOMETHING ELSE COULD BE REOPENED, SO THAT WAS WHAT GOVERNED THIS APPROACH.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAN:   ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN, MY FOLLOW UP, I APPRECIATE -- SOME OF THE

LANGUAGE TALKED ABOUT IT'S NOT JUST TRANSLATION SERVICES OR,

LIKE, LET'S ALSO MAKE SURE THERE'S HEARING IMPAIRED AND OTHER CHALLENGES THAT FACE VICTIMS WITH DISABILITIED THAT WE COULD ADDRESS.

AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND, TOO. I THINK YOU KIND OF TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS, AND I AGREE, BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO

VICTIMS, OFTEN TIME, AS THE SYSTEM CURRENTLY EXISTS, YOU

WOULD HAVE TO FILE A REPORT.

YOU HAVE TO BE ALREADY IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM TO ALREADY QUOTE AND QUOTE BE

IDENTIFIED AS A VICTIM, BUT OFTENTIMES, WITNESSES TO A

CRIME OR SOME OTHER

CIRCUMSTANCE, ACTUALLY, THOSE FOLKS ALSO NEED HELP.

MAYBE NOT IN THE EYE OF THE

LAW, BUT COULD ACTUALLY BE DEEMED AS VICTIMS. HOW DO THE VICTIMS GET IN TOUCH

WITH THIS OFFICE OR HOW DOES THE OFFICE PROVIDE VICTIMS WHO

ARE NOT IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM SERVICES?

>> THE GOAL -- THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHAN. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND THAT GETS TO THE HEART OF

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.

IT TALKS VICTIMS SERVICES,

WHICH IS BASICALLY AT THE BACK

OF THE SERVICES, A ONE-STOP

SHOP AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE AT THE BEGINNING.

IF YOU CALL THEM AND SAY, I'VE

BEEN VICTIMIZED, YOU COULD USE

THEM IF YOU SO CHOSE, AND THEY

COULD HELP ABATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE EXPERIENCED BASED ON TRAUMA OR THEY COULD HELP YOU. SO THE IDEA THAT YOU NOW HAVE A PLACE THAT YOU CAN CALL WITHOUT A CASE AND TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEY CAN GIVE YOU

SORT OF A BUFFET OF OPTIONS,

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING, AGAIN,

THAT HAS TO BE BUILT OUT. I DON'T WANT TO OVERPROMISE AND

SAY JUNE 2, THIS THING FLIES

UP, AND EVERY VICTIM OF VIOLENCE WILL BE HELPED.

IF THEY HEAR FROM VICTIMS ABOUT

WHAT THEY NEED, THEN, THEY CAN

FILL IT OUT WITH WHAT VICTIMS NEED ACUTELY.

>> SUPERVISOR CHAN:   AND I THINK THE TRANSLATION AND VICTIM SERVICES, I KNOW THAT WE'RE

TRYING AS A CITY TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE SERVICES AND MOST DEFINITELY VICTIM SERVICES, BUT

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, I THINK

THAT MY OPINION, LANGUAGE

ACCESS AND CULTURAL COMPETENCY IS SIGNIFICANTLY LACKED.

WHEN IT COMES TO VICTIMS

EXPERIENCING ANY TYPE OF TRAUMA, ESPECIALLY DOMESTIC TRAUMA AND WHAT ARE ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THEIR -- AND WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN THEIR HOMES, CULTURAL COMPETENCY IS A HUGE COMPONENT TO SUCCESSFULLY

BE ABLE TO HELP VICTIMS.

SO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT AS MY THOUGHTS, AND IN THE EVENT THAT

IT DOES GET OUT AND PASS BY THE

VOTERS, I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE ORDINANCE AND

LEARNING MORE ABOUT IT.

>> THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR CHAN, AND I AGREE COMPLETELY.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   I NEGLECTED,

COLLEAGUES, TO HAVE THE

CONTROLLER'S OFFICE READ THE CONTROLLER'S STATEMENT. MISS STEVENSON, IF YOU WOULD

LIKE TO DO SO, PLEASE PROCEED. >> GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS. PEG SEECHB TEVENS FROM THE CONTROLLER'S PERFORMANCE GROUP. YOU HAVE A LETTER IN YOUR PACKET PROBABLY JUST REFLECTING BASIC START-UP COSTS FOR THE

BASIC START-UP ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE. SO THIS WOULD BE A DIRECTOR FOR

THE OFFICE AND SOME STAFFING AND OPERATIONAL SUPPORT TO

CARRY OUT THE SERVICE AND

NEEDS, AND OUR ESTIMATE FOR

THOSE COSTS ARE RIGHT AROUND $1

MILLION, WHICH WOULD BE A DIRECTOR AND STAFFING SUPPORT FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES.

AND THEN, AS MR. MILAN ALLUDED, THE REST OF THE COSTS WOULD

COME IN THE FORM OF ORDINANCES, PROPOSALS THAT COME THROUGH

YOUR NORMAL BUDGETARY AND

FISCAL PROCESSES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT WAY.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   YES, MISS STEVENS.

IT IS IN OUR PACKET, BUT JUST

WANTED YOU TO SAY IT SO THE PUBLIC COULD HEAR IT.

SO I GUESS THESE ARE MORE

COMMENTS THAN QUESTIONS, AND I

WANT TO THANK SUPERVISOR STEFANI AND THE OTHER

INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED ONTO

THIS AND SAY THAT I THINK THIS

COULD BE PASSED BY THIS BOARD

PROBABLY UNANIMOUSLY WELL BEFORE JUNE.

I THINK IF YOU INTRODUCE THIS AT TOMORROW'S BOARD MEETING, IT

COULD PROBABLY BE LAW BY THE END OF MARCH, AND OBVIOUSLY,

THE CHARTER ALLOWS THIS TO GO

DIRECTLY TO THE BALLOT, BUT

INSOFAR AS THE FIRST PHASE OF

THIS IS AN EXPLORATORY PHASE,

AS WE'VE DONE WITH MANY OTHER OFFICES, RACIAL EQUITY, CANNABIS, YOU NAME IT, THEY

WERE CREATED BY THE BOARD; AND

FURTHER, INSOFAR AS BECAUSE

THIS IS A CHART AMENDMENT, THE ORDINARY -- CHARTER AMENDMENT,

BEING APPROVED BY THE VOTERS

ONLY GUARANTEES FUNDING FOR ONE YEAR.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS IS GOOD STUFF, AND WE COULD ACTUALLY HAVE IT BE LAW SEVERAL MONTHS

BEFORE THE JUNE ELECTION.

SUPERVISOR MAR, ONE OF THE

THINGS THAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT

HIS ORDINANCE, WHY CAN'T WE JUST PUT THIS BEFORE THE BOARD,

AND HE ACTUALLY HAD A COGENT

RESPONSE WAS THAT NO, HE HAD

BEEN ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT PREVIOUS BALLOT

MEASURE OCCUPIED THIS FIELD. IT COULD ONLY BE DONE AT THE

BALLOT, AND AT THAT POINT, I

UNDERSTOOD WHY IT WAS BEFORE US.

SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE COULD DO THIS UNDER THE DOME, AND THE

NEXT COUPLE OF ITEMS WITH

REGARD TO SURVEILLANCE, I HOPE,

IF EVERYTHING WORKS OUT, AND

COOLER HEADS PREVAIL, WE WILL DO IT UNDER THE DOME.

BUT THOSE BALLOT ITEMS HAVEN'T

BEEN CALLED, SO I WON'T SPEAK TO THOSE FOR ANOTHER MOMENT OR TWO. BUT THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS,

WHICH DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

>> DID YOU WANT A RESPONSE, SUPERVISOR PESKIN?

OR I DON'T NEED TO -- I'M NOT TRYING TO.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   YEAH.

>> THE PATH -- YOU ARE NOT

WRONG ON THIS ISSUE AND MANY OTHERS.

THE PATH THAT WAS CHOSEN WAS

JUST A PARALLEL PATH TO THE

RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

WHEN ENSHRINING A RIGHT, WE

HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS TO ASK

THEM IF THAT IS A WORTHY RIGHT TO ENSHRINE.

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   TENANT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS NOT ACTUALLY PUT

ON BY THE ELECTEDS, THAT WAS

PUT ON BY THE VOTERS, SO THAT

WAS AN EXCEPTION TO ADMITTEDLY MY OWN SELF-IMPOSED RULE, WHICH IS IF YOU WANT TO GO OUT AND GET 9,000 BALLOT SIGNATURES, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE FOLKS WHO WERE ELECTED TO PASS LAWS DID NOT ACTUALLY PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT, SO

THERE'S A -- THERE'S A DIFFERENCE THERE.

>> THERE IS, BUT I THINK THAT

WAS PROBABLY A CHOICE THAT SEEMS LIKE THE BOARD WOULD HAVE

BEEN READY AND INTERESTED IN

PASSING THAT. >> SUPERVISOR PESKIN:

>> CHAIR PESKIN:   I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I KNOW, BUT I DON'T

KNOW BECAUSE THAT WAS IN MY

GLORIOUS SEVEN-YEAR HIATUS, SO

I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WAS PUT TO THE VOTERS AND NOT TO THE ELECTEDS. ALL RIGHT. SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN, ANYTHING

YOU WANT TO ADD AS A COSPONSOR? OKAY.

YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF WORDS THIS MORNING. SUPERVISOR CHAN?

>> SUPERVISOR CHAN:   YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AM THANKFUL TO SUPERVISOR STEFANI'S LEADERSHIP ON THIS, AND ESPECIALLY MANY OTHERS THAT

CONCERN VICTIMS OF CRIME, THAT

I DID, TOO -- THAT I DO, TOO,

AGREE WITH CHAIR PESKIN. MANY OF THE THINGS THAT I'M WORKING ON, I THOUGHT BETTER OF

IT, AND HOW CAN I BETTER DO THE

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO LOOK AT

IT HERE. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMMENTS TO

CHARTER AMENDMENTS, I TAKE IT

SERIOUSLY, AND I AGREE WITH CHAIR PESKIN.

LAST WEEK, WHEN WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT SUPERVISOR

MAR'S LEGISLATION, JUST

DOUBLE-CHECK AND TRIPLE CHECK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AFTER

THE MEETING, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO PATHS WITH

THE EXISTING LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, THAT IT JUST GOES

THROUGH AS A LEGISLATION WE CAN PASS, KNOWING THAT WE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO VOTE.

IN FACT, I THINK THIS IS A VERY WORTHWHILE ENDEAVOR THAT WE CAN TAKE ON RIGHT NOW BEFORE JUNE. [PLEASE STAND BY]

>> MY APOLOGIES. IS THIS ITEM EIGHT? WHAT ITEM IS THIS.

>> ITEM SIX. >> ITEM SIX. THANK YOU. I WILL WAIT FOR A LATER ITEM.

THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL

SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM NUMBER 6?

>> THAT WAS OUR ONLY COLOR FOR THIS ITEM. >> OKAY, IF THERE ARE NO FINAL COMMENTS, I WILL MAKE A MOTION

TO FILE THIS HEARING.

ON THAT MOTION, MR. YOUNG, A RULE CALL, PLEASE. >> THE MOTION TO FILE...

[ROLL CALL]

THE MOTION PASSES WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> THANK YOU, SUPERVISORS. HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY.

>> LIKEWISE. CAN YOU READ ITEMS SEVEN AND

EIGHT TOGETHER, PLEASE?

>> YES, ITEM SEVEN IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE POST INITIATIVE ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY THE MAYOR

TO THE VOTERS FOR THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 ELECTION ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TO AUTHORIZE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ACQUIRE AND USE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CRIMINAL

EVENTS AS DEFINED AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITY THAT IS CONCENTRATED IN

CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTINCT

AREAS.

ITEM NUMBER 8 IS THE HEARING TO

CONSIDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE PERFORMED BY SUPERVISORS TO THE

VOTERS FOR THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 ELECTION, ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ADMINISTERED OF CODE TO ADOPT WITH MINOR CHANGES AS A VOTER APPROVED MEASURE THE

ORDINANCE WHICH CURRENTLY REQUIRES THE CITY DEPARTMENTS

ACQUIRING SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OR ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM NONCITY-OWNED

SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND SUBMIT A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

APPROVED SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY POLICY ORDINANCE BASED ON POLICY OR POLICIES DEVELOPED BY THE COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY. >> THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG.

WHY DON'T WE START WITH THE CONTROLLER'S STATEMENT FOR ITEMS

SEVEN AND EIGHT, WHICH I BELIEVE

HAVE NO FINANCIAL IMPACT, BUT

MISS STEVENSON? >> THAT IS CORRECT. JUST AFFIRMING YOUR STATEMENT.

NO SIGNIFICANT COSTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. >> THANK YOU, MISS STEVENSON.

I WILL GIVE MR. POWER, FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS CHIEF CHIEF SCOTT WHO IS HERE, AN

OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT, BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I WANT TO SET THE STAGE AND REMIND EVERYBODY

HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE, AND THAT REALLY BEGINS WITH A LAW

THAT I AUTHORED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO IN 2019. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN,

FOR YOUR VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THAT. THE LAW WAS CRAFTED IN COLLABORATION WITH THE COALITION OF ADVOCATES WHO I WANT TO

ACKNOWLEDGE, RANGING FROM THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER

FOUNDATION, SECURE JUSTICE, OPEN PRIVACY, COUNCIL OF ARAB AND

ISLAMIC RELATIONS, MEDIA JUSTICE

JUSTICE, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

COALITION, AS WELL AS DOZENS OF OTHER CIVIL LIBERTIES, PRIVACY AND FREE-SPEECH ORGANIZATIONS. A TOTAL OF 36 ORGANIZATIONS

SUBMITTED A LETTER LAST THURSDAY

REITERATING THEIR SUPPORT OF THE 2019 SURVEILLANCE OVERSIGHT ORDINANCE. AND BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, IT

OPERATED AND NEW FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. AND BY THE WAY, IT WAS NOT A SAN

FRANCISCO FIRST. I THINK WE WERE THE SEVENTH

MUNICIPALITY TO PASS THIS KIND

OF LEGISLATION.

OURS WAS UNIQUE AND SO FAR AS IT DID, AND WAS THE FIRST TO BAN FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY IN

SURVEILLANCE -- IN THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. THAT WAS IN THE MIDST OF THE

TRUMP PRESIDENCY. WE REALLY PUT FORWARD A PLAN TO

PROVIDE DIGITAL SAFETY AND SANCTUARY IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND JUST BECAUSE THE POLITICAL

CLIMATE HAS IMPROVED UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, THAT

DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE REST OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES HAVE MAGICALLY DISAPPEARED OVERNIGHT OR THEY WILL NOT REEMERGE IN

WAYS THAT EVERYONE SHOULD FIND QUITE DISTURBING.

IN THE PAST FEW YEARS SINCE WE

HAVE PASSED THAT POLICY, DOZENS OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE ADOPTED SIMILAR

POLICIES IN THE AGE OF

TECHNOLOGY, AND HERE LOCALLY, DOZENS OF OUR DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUBMITTED SURVEILLANCE

TECHNOLOGY POLICIES, WHICH YOU ARE AWARE BECAUSE WE HAVE

REVIEWED AND APPROVED EVERY SINGLE ONE WHICH PERTAIN TO FAMILY TECHNOLOGY RANGING FROM THE USE OF SECURITY CAMERAS, TO

AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS,

TO RADIOFREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION, THERE ARE DOZENS OF TECHNOLOGIES OUTSTANDING. AND MANY DEPARTMENTS THAT STILL HAVE YET TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE

WITH THE 2019 LAW. I BELIEVE THE ORDINANCE HAS

ALREADY BEEN A FLEDGLING SUCCESS

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OUR CITY'S HISTORY. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN GO

ONLINE AND SEE A LIST OF EVERY

TECHNOLOGY OWN OR USED BY THE GOVERNMENT HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO. THEY CAN VIEW POLICIES FOR HOW

THAT TECHNOLOGY IS USED, HOW

LONG IT IS SHARED, HOW LONG IT

IS STORED, AND THEY CAN HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR

DEVIATION FROM THOSE POLICIES.

TO ME THIS REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT AND IMPORTANT CULTURAL AND POLICY SHIFT FROM

WHERE WE WERE A DECADE AGO WHEN REVELATIONS OF MASS SECRET

SURVEILLANCE BY THE NSA MADE

HEADLINES AROUND THE WORLD. AND YET, THREE YEARS AFTER WE COLLECTIVELY CELEBRATED THE

PASSAGE OF THE SURVEILLANCE

OVERSIGHT POLICY LAW, WE FIND OURSELVES CONTENDING WITH A

PROPOSAL THAT COULD DO ASPECTS OF THAT LAW. I HAVE BEEN QUITE CONSISTENT IN MY THINKING ABOUT THE PALLET,

WHICH I JUST EXPRESSED IN THE LAST ITEM, WHICH IS THAT WE

SHOULD USE IT AS A PORT OF LAST

RESORT WHEN WE --

[INDISCERNIBLE] -- OR NEED TO AMEND THE CHARTER

OR PASS A BOND.

AS I HAVE EXPRESSED TO THE CHIEF AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, I WOULD LIKE

TO SEE US TRY TO EXHAUST A LEGISLATIVE REMEDY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US BEFORE

PROCEEDING TO THE PALLET. THAT REMAINS MY POSITION THIS MORNING AND WE HAVE HAD -- PROCEEDING TO THE BALLOT.

WE HAVE HAD PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS TO THE MAYOR'S

OFFICE. I HAVE REMAINED COMMITTED TO WORKING COLLABORATIVELY AND HOPE

WE CAN MUTUALLY AGREE ON A PATH FORWARD. IN RESPONSE TO THE MAYOR'S

MEASURE, ALONG WITH SUPERVISORS

PRESTON, CHAND, RONEN, AND WALTON, WE PUT FORWARD ANOTHER BALLOT MEASURE, WHICH IS ITEM

EIGHT, WHERE WE ARE HEARING WITH ITEM SEVEN, WHICH WOULD

REINFORCE EXISTING AND SUBJECTION TO A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR AMENDMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

FOR A LAW LIKE THIS ONE WHICH EFFECTIVELY REGULATES THE REGULATORS, GIVES MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE

THAT IT WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO MANIPULATION WHEN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF.

BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO MR. POWER AND CHIEF SCOTT, I

WANT TO NOTE THAT THE P.D., THIS

PAST WEEK, DRAFTED A POLICY GOVERNING THE USE OF THIRD-PARTY SECURITY CAMERAS. AND WHILE IT NEEDS SOME WORK,

AND SHOULD BE PUBLICLY VETTED, AS WE HAVE DONE WITH OTHER POLICIES, IT IS A GESTURE OF

GOOD FAITH AND I WOULD MUCH RATHER SPEND MY TIME IN MY

OFFICE'S TIME WORKING TO FINE TUNE THAT POLICY AND MOVE IT THROUGH THE ESTABLISHED PROCESS.

I WILL CONCLUDE MY REMARKS ON A CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC NOTE. WE HAVE SOME WORK AHEAD OF US.

THAT WORK CAN BE SPENT IN A TOUGH PUBLIC BATTLE OVER THE

NEXT THREE MONTHS OR IT CAN BE

SPENT WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SURVEILLANCE OVERSIGHT LAW. I HAPPEN TO THINK THAT OUR EFFORTS ARE BETTER SPENT IN THE

LATTER CATEGORY, BUT THAT, OF COURSE,, WILL REQUIRE PULLING BOTH MEASURES FROM THE BALLOT ON

OR BEFORE MARCH 1ST, WHICH IS THE LAST DAY TO PULL IT. MARCH 4TH IS THE LAST DAY TO PULL IT. WE WILL SEE WHAT TRANSPIRES OVER

THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT HOPEFULLY COOLER HEADS WILL PREVAIL AND THE PEOPLE OF THE

CITY AND COUNTY WILL SEE IS ALL WORKING TOGETHER.

WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. POWER AND CHIEF SCOTT FOR THEIR REMARKS.

INC. YOU. >> -- THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I WILL SPEAK FOR ONE MINUTE BECAUSE I KNOW THE CHIEF HAS ANOTHER COMMITMENT AT NOON THAT

HE HAS TO RUN TO AND I WANT TO

GET HIM TO SPEAK ON THIS AS WELL. VERY BRIEFLY, I ECHO YOUR SENTIMENTS, SUPERVISOR. IT IS OUR GOAL AND DESIRE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD LEGISLATIVELY. THERE IS AN ORDINANCE CURRENTLY PENDING. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH YOUR OFFICE COLLABORATIVELY AND I APPRECIATE THAT COLLABORATION.

I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT WE WILL -- COOLER HEADS WILL PREVAIL AND WE WILL MOVE FORWARD A POLICY THAT WE CAN ALL SUPPORT. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN

IT OVER TO THE CHIEF TO GET SOME CONTEXT AS TO WHAT SPECIFICALLY

IS NEEDED.

I AM SPEAKING TO ITEM NUMBER 7.

THAT THIS MEASURE IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT. CHIEF? >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR PESKIN. GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISOR CHAN, SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN AND

MR. POWER. FIRST OF ALL, SUPERVISOR PESKIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR

LISTENING AND WORKING WITH US ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK MR. POWER

FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND THE

MAYOR FOR ALSO LISTENING AND AGREEING TO WORK TOGETHER COOPERATIVELY.

BASICALLY, I WILL GIVE YOU THE

VERY SHORT VERSION OF THE ISSUE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THEY DON'T INTEND TO BREACH THAT. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK TO

GET US TO THIS POINT IN TERMS OF IDENTIFYING ALL THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY POLICIES. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FEELS WE CAN BETTER USE TECHNOLOGY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES

AS A RELATES TO ACRYLIC -- CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN OUR CITY AND COUNTY.

AND SPECIFICALLY THERE ARE

THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE WE CAN BE

MORE EFFICIENT AT IN TERMS OF

LIFE ACCESS TO CAMERA FEEDS WHEN CRIMES OR OCCURRING OR WHERE THERE IS INFORMATION, CREDIBLE INFORMATION THAT GIVES EVERY INDICATION THAT CRIMES ARE ABOUT TO OCCUR. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SERIOUS

CRIMES AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN UNION SQUARE ON NOVEMBER 19TH.

THAT IS THE SPIRIT THAT WE ARE WORKING WITHIN. WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ROOM

TO IMPROVE OUR EXISTING POLICIES AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO GIVE OUR INPUT ON WHAT THOSE

THINGS MIGHT LOOK LIKE. AND THE LAW IS SAYING TOO THAT

AS WE WORK TOGETHER ON THIS, WE ARE ALL ABOUT EQUITY IN THE CITY.

WE BELIEVE THAT A THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POLICY

ISSUES, THEY WILL GIVE US A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ISSUES CITY WIDE. NOT JUST WE SAW ON NOVEMBER 19TH, BUT AREAS IN THE CITY

THAT HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY, AND TRADITIONALLY HARD-HIT BY

VIOLENT CRIME, DRUG DEALING, DRUG OVERDOSES AS A RESULT OF THOSE DEALINGS. I TRULY BELIEVE FROM A POLICING

STANDPOINT, SMART, THOUGHTFUL AND BOUNDLESS USE OF TECHNOLOGY CAN HELP US GET TO A BETTER PLACE IN ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES. THAT IS THE SPIRIT FROM WHICH WE ARE WORKING ON. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO COMING UP WITH A POLICY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR OUR CITY.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. I HAVE ANY NUMBER OF QUESTIONS,

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH. YOU ARE UNDER A TIME CRUNCH,

WHICH IS NOT YOUR FAULT OR OUR FAULT, IT IS THE FACT THAT WE

WERE DELAYED IN OUR AND 20 MINUTES AND STARTING -- IN STARTING OUR MEETING THIS MORNING.

I WILL RESERVE THOSE QUESTIONS AND GOD WILLING AND FINGERS CROSSED, WE WILL WORK ON THAT

BEFORE THE END OF THE MONTH, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR YOU FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS,

GO TO YOUR MEETING, CHIEF. OKAY, SUPERVISOR CHAN? >> THANK YOU. >> CHAIR PESKIN, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU.

I AM PLEASED TO HEAR THAT WE WILL CONTINUE ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF

THE WAY WE ARE TREATING THESE BALLOT MEASURES AND

INITIATIVES.

WE CAN FIND WAYS TO WORK THIS OUT THROUGH LEGISLATION. I THINK THAT IT IS ALL THE

BETTER FOR THE POLICYMAKERS AND

FOR OUR VOTERS THAT WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE DOING OUR JOB AND

MAKING THE DECISION THAT WE ARE ELECTED TO MAKE AND DO. THINK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WHY DON'T WE OPEN ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT

ON THESE ITEMS? >> YES, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC

COMMENT ON THESE ITEMS SHOULD

415:  655-0001.

THE MEETING ID IS 24940524358 AND PRESS POUND AND POUND AGAIN. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, DIAL

STAR THREE TO LINE UP TO SPEAK. IF YOU ARE ON HOLD, PLEASE CONTINUE TO WAIT UNTIL THE SYSTEM INDICATES YOU HAVE BEEN

ON MUTED AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE 15 CALLERS IN LINE TO SPEAK.

>> FIRST SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>> GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS. ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION AND LOCKSTEP WITH OUR PARTNERS AT THE ACLU AND OTHER CIVIL

RIGHTS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS, WE OPPOSE ANY EFFORTS TO GOT THE SAN FRANCISCO SURVEILLANCE LAW WHICH PROTECTS THE COMMUNITY FROM ABUSES BY SFPD AND WE KNOW THAT THESE CONCERNS ARE ALSO SHARED BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

AT A TIME WHEN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS USED HARMFUL RHETORIC TO CRIMINALIZE BROAD SWATHS OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS AND IN A TIME WHEN THE POLICE

SELECTED TO DRAW FROM THE M.O.U. WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHICH HELPS HOLD THE

DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTABLE, AND IN A

TIME WHEN THE FINDINGS FOR THE

MOST RECENT RIPPLE REPORT ONCE AGAIN FOUND BLACK SAN FRANCISCANS ARE OVERREPRESENTED PER CAPITA IN ALL INTERACTIONS WITH SFPD. THE MAYOR IS PROPOSING TO ROLL BACK CIVIL RIGHTS AND CAN

ENCOURAGE CONTINUING POLICE ABUSE. THE DEPARTMENT WAS UNABLE TO ANSWER THE MOST BASIC QUESTIONS

IN A CULTURE THAT IS UNWILLING TO CHANGE.

SO MANY OF OUR COMMUNITIES HAVE

BEEN HARMED BY OVER POLICING AND

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD SFPD HAVE VIRTUALLY UNCHECKED THIS. SAN FRANCISCANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT AND REGULATE THE

SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO AND HOW IT IS UTILIZED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT CALLER, PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING.

I AM SPEAKING TODAY AS A 32 YEAR RESIDENT OF DISTRICT EIGHT. ESPECIAL GOOD MORNING TO SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN.

I'M HERE TO EXPRESS MY STRONG

OPPOSITION TO THE MAYOR'S MEASURE TO WEAKEN SAN FRANCISCO TEACHER SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE. DURING THE GEORGE FLOYD PROTEST, I WENT TO EVERY MARCH AND RALLY

I COULD FIND, DID YOU? WE WERE THERE TO DEMAND JUSTICE

AND ACCOUNTABILITY. INSTEAD, THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT UNJUSTLY,

UNACCOUNTABLY AND ILLEGALLY SUBJECTED US TO SURVEILLANCE. THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTIONS SPEAK

LOUDER THAN THEIR WORDS HERE TODAY. NOW THE MAYOR WANTS TO REWARD AND INSTITUTIONALIZE THIS

UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR.

I AGREE WITH CHAIR PESKIN. THE MAYOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW HER MEASURE, BUT FAILING THAT, ALL BOARD MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT ALREADY DONE SO,

AND YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN, SHOULD ADD THEIR NAMES TO THE

COUNTERMEASURE AND SIGN THE BALLOT ARGUMENT AGAINST THE MAYOR'S MEASURE AND IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTERMEASURE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS TIM KINGSTON. I AM A MEMBER OF THE SAN

FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR RACIAL JUSTICE COMMITTEE. I HELPED PASS THIS LEGISLATION. I KNOW WHAT IS IN IT. THE PROBLEMS WITH THE MAYOR

FREED AND CHIEFS GOT WITH THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE FOR NOT ACCURATE. THE LEGISLATION ALREADY ALLOWS

FOR LOW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS IN

THE EVENT OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

I REPEAT, THIS IS ALREADY IN THE LEGISLATION. THE MAYOR IS DRIVING A BULLDOZER THROUGH THE BACK WALL OF THE LEGISLATION TO KNOCK IT DOWN

WHEN THE FRONT DOOR IS WELCOMING. OR PROPOSAL IS UNNECESSARY AND MUST BE WITHDRAWN. WHY IS SHE LOBBYING A GRENADE

WHEN SHE HAS A KEY TO THE HOUSE? THE MAYOR IS SUCCUMBING TO A MORAL PANIC ABOUT CRIME, LIKE

MOST MORAL PANICS, IT TARGETS A SOLUTION. IT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO PREVENT

SUCH A MISTAKE.

SURVEILLANCE TECH MAKES MISTAKES. WE KNOW THAT SURVEILLANCE TECH FREQUENTLY MISIDENTIFIED AS

PEOPLE OF COLOR. WE KNOW THAT SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IS INVARIABLY

CONCENTRATED ON AND TARGETED ON THE POOR AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. WE KNOW THIS IS WHY THE COUNTRY HAS MORE PEOPLE IN JAIL THAN ANY

OTHER INDUSTRIAL NATION. THE ORDINANCE AS IT STANDS PROTECTS OUR CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS, OUR PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS. THE MAYOR SAID DURING THE GEORGE FLOYD BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST THAT SHE WANTS TO REFORM THE

POLICE AND PROTECT BLACK LIVES AND CIVIL RIGHTS. WHITE SHE GOING BACK ON HER WORD. THE WIND HAS SHIFTED.

SHE SHOULD NOT. WITHDRAW THIS LEGISLATION AND PLEASE STOP BROWBEATING THE SUPERVISORS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SPEAKER. >> GOOD MORNING, SUPERVISORS.

I AM WITH THE FOUNDATION AND I AM A RESIDENT OF THE DISTRICT

EIGHT. ALONG WITH A DIVERSE COALITION

OF ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE CITY AND REGION, WE HAVE SUPPORTED THE LANDMARK SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE WHEN IT PASSED IN 2019 BECAUSE OF ITS KEY GOALS OF TRANSPARENCY,

DEMOCRATIC CONTROL AND PUBLIC INPUT.

THAT IS WHY WE OPPOSE THE MAYOR'S INITIATIVE WHICH WOULD

GET THE ORDINANCE AND ALLOW POLICE TO EVADE OVERSIGHT.

THE SFPD HAS A LONG HISTORY OF SURVEILLING MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING THE LGBT COMMUNITY, LABOR ACTIVISTS, AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.

WE SHOULD NOT GIVE THEM A BLANK CHECK TO DETERMINE WHEN AND WHERE TO DEPLOY SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. THERE MUST BE GUARD RAILS TO HOLD THE POLICE ACCOUNTABLE AND ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO BE HEARD. THAT IS WHY WE SUPPORT THE

BALLOT INITIATIVE WHICH SEEKS TO MAINTAIN OVERSIGHT OF SURVEILLANCE.

ULTIMATELY, WE URGE THE MAYOR TO PULL HER MEASURE FROM THE BALLOT.

THE POLICE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW, NOT TRIED TO EVADE IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GOOD MORNING. I HAVE LIVED IN THE CASTRO

DISTRICT FOR 22 YEARS AND I WORKED DOWNTOWN IN THE DESIGN DISTRICT.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE GIVING THEM UNCHECKED SURVEILLANCE POWERS WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC OVERSIGHT TO

HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. OUR CITY WILL BE FOREVER CHANGED

IF THE SFPD HAS THE UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO SECRETLY MONITOR US

FOR ANY REASON THEY CHOOSE, INCLUDING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTEST.

I BELIEVE THAT IT IS INVASIVE

AND IT WILL BE USED TO UNFAIRLY TARGET ACTIVISTS AND MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, SO I URGE THE MAYOR TO WITHDRAW THIS MEASURE FROM THE BALLOT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HELLO, I AM THE SENIOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COURT NATURE FOR THE COUNCIL ON THE MAYOR OF ISLAMIC RELATIONS.

AS PART OF A DIVERSE COALITION OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND ORGANIZERS AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO ADVOCATED FOR THE SURVEILLANCE

ORDINANCE ORIGINALLY. WE URGE MAYOR BREED TO PULL THE

PROPOSAL THAT WOULD GET THE CITY'S SURVEILLANCE.

SAN FRANCISCO MUST NOT GIVE THE SAN FRANCISCO P.D. VIRTUALLY UNCHECKED SURVEILLANCE POWERS.

IN HER PROPOSAL THAT FEEDS ON

THE FEARS OF CRIMES AND IT IS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH FOR DANGEROUS LEGISLATION.

THE FACT THAT IT CAN VIRTUALLY GIVE UNCHECKED AUTHORITY TO AND REALTIME SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE,

IN ANY OTHER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT OVERSIGHT IS REALLY CONCERNING. AND THIS ALSO INCLUDES

TECHNOLOGY LIKE DRONES OR MICROPHONES THAT RECORD OUR VOICES FROM AFAR.

THE SFPD HAS THE TOOLS IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION.

THEY JUST NEED TO GO THROUGH THE

PROPER PROCESS OF DOING SO. THIS PROPOSAL IS A WAY TO GO

AROUND THAT AND IT CAUSES

SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

WHAT IT WILL DO IS, YOU KNOW,

THE TECHNOLOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MORE INVASIVE AND WE KNOW THAT

WITHOUT THIS OVERSIGHT THEN THIS

COULD BE USED FOR ACTIVISTS OF

PEOPLE IN COLOR AND PEOPLE IN POVERTY. WE URGE THE COMMISSION, THE

COMMITTEE TO REJECT THIS. WE WANT THEM TO FULLY SUPPORT

THE ORDINANCE IN ITS FULL AUTHORITY AND TO REJECT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU, SO MUCH. >> MY APOLOGIES.

THANK YOU, NEXT SPEAKER. >> GOOD MORNING.

I AM A STAFF ATTORNEY WITH SAN FRANCISCO. TOGETHER WITH 35 COMMUNITY GROUPS, WE SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE BOARD OPPOSING THE MAYOR'S

BALLOT MEASURE.

WE ALSO SUPPORT THE EXISTING LAW AND WE COMMEND SUPERVISORS' EFFORTS TO DEFEND IT.

WE ALREADY KNOW IN SAN FRANCISCO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE SFPD DEPLOYED SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT

SAFEGUARDS. FOR DECADES SFPD TARGETS ACTIVISTS AND DEMONSTRATORS.

THEY KEPT INTELLIGENCE FILES ON LAW-ABIDING RESIDENTS AND ENGAGED IN DISCRIMINATORY SURVEILLANCE.

AS A SUPERVISOR PESKIN SAID, THE

COMMUNITY CAME TOGETHER AND A NEAR UNANIMOUS BOARD PAST THE

SURVEILLANCE OVERSIGHT LAW IN 2019.

FOR NEARLY THREE YEARS, SFPD HAS DEFIED THAT LAW. EVEN TODAY, THEY ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE ON A NUMBER OF THINGS. THE MAYOR'S MEASURE WOULD REWARD THE SFPD FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT

TO THIS OVERSIGHT.

IT WOULD TURN BACK THE CLOCK THE POLICE CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THIS UNCHECKED POWER. SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY HAS NEVER BEEN MORE INVASIVE AND THERE NEEDS TO BE GUARDRAILS.

WE ALL WANT SAN FRANCISCO TO BE SAFE, WHICH INCLUDES BEING SAFE FROM POLICE ABUSE.

MAYOR BREED SEIZES UPON FEAR TO

MASSIVELY EXPAND SURVEILLANCE

THAT WILL HARM THE VERY PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED BY SERIOUS CRIMES. MAKE NO MISTAKE, AS THIS GROWS, CIVIL LIGHTS -- CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES SHRINK, AND IT

IS BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE AND

PEOPLE IN POVERTY WHO BEAR THE BRUNT OF THE VIOLENCE. THE MAYOR SHOULD PULL THE

MEASURE AND COME INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S EXISTING SURVEILLANCE LAW.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.

>> HELLO. >> PLEASE PROCEED WITH YOUR

COMMENT. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, WE CAN. >> THANK YOU.

I OPPOSED THIS AND ANY ATTEMPT

TO MAKE THIS AN OVERSIGHT LAW. SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IS INVASIVE AND DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVELY IMPACTS PEOPLE OF COLOR AND LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES.

WE NEED TO HOLD HIGH STANDARDS OF PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT FOR ALL POLICE SURVEILLANCE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. CAN WE GET THE NEXT SPEAKER,

PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS ASHLEY MORRIS.

I WORK IN THE FINANCIAL DISTRICT FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS AND COMMUTED ON BARTH. I SUPPORT THE 2019 ORDINANCE AND I OPPOSED THE MAYOR'S ATTEMPT TO GOT IT. I URGE HER TO WITHDRAW THE MEASURE FROM THE BALLOT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER,

PLEASE? >> HELLO, EXCUSE ME.

MY NAME IS CHRISTINA. I HAVE LIVED IN DISTRICT NINE

FOR 25 YEARS AND I AM ADAMANTLY

OPPOSED TO ALLOWING THE SFPD TO

GET A BLANK CHECK ON SURVEILLANCE. THAT MAKES US ALL LESS SAFE, NOT MORE.

THEY HAVE ALREADY GOT A RECORD

OF DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT FOR

PEOPLE OF COLOR, TOWARDS ACTIVISTS.

THEY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW BUT

ILLEGALLY SPYING ON BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVISTS, AND GIVING THEM UNFETTERED ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT

IS JUST GOING TO MAKE US ALL LESS SAFE AND DESTROY OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES. PLEASE REMOVE THIS FROM THE

BALLOT AND I SUPPORT THE OTHER

SUPERVISORS WHO ARE TRYING TO KEEP THE EXISTING LAW IN PLACE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> HI, MY NAME IS AJAY.

I AM A RESIDENT.

I AM IN D6 RIGHT NOW AND.

[INDISCERNIBLE] -- MY STATEMENT IS TO OPPOSE THE

MEASURES AND TO GET THE ORDINANCE. JUST FOR A FEW REASONS. QUICKLY TO HELP ENFORCE THE

ORDINANCE WHICH HAS TAKEN A LOT OF WORK TO GET INTO PLAY --

[INDISCERNIBLE]

-- DEALING WITH EXTERNAL FORCES, AND TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL

LIBERTIES FREE OF CHARGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. >> YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, THIS IS

TRACY FROM OAKLAND PRIVACY. I AM CALLING TO ASK THE

SUPERVISORS TO PLEASE AFFIRM AND

SUPPORT THE CURRENT EXISTING SURVEILLANCE LAW. IN 2018, SAN FRANCISCO VOTERS

PASSED PROP B., OVERWHELMINGLY

SAYING YES TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE INTEREST OF PROTECTING PRIVACY.

OVERSIGHT IS NOT AN IMPEDIMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR TO ANYTHING ELSE. THIS IS A STRONG ARGUMENT THAT

SHOULD NOT FALL.

WE ASK FOR THE MAYOR TO REMOVE

HER OR TO WITHDRAW HER EFFORTS.

WE ASK FOR SAN FRANCISCO P.D. TO

COME INTO FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE AND WE ASK FOR ALL

THE SUPERVISORS TO ENDORSE THE COUNTERMEASURE IF IT PROVES

NECESSARY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, SUPERVISORS. I AM A CONSTITUENT OF DISTRICT

10 AND I'M CALLING TODAY TO OBJECT TO THE CURRENT LEVEL OF

SURVEILLANCE. WE KNOW THAT IN ACCESSING THE NATIONAL NETWORK OF SURVEILLANCE, THEY HAVE ACCESS

TO A VARIETY OF F.B.I. AND D.O.J. SOURCES THAT ARE QUESTIONABLY ILLEGAL, IN ADDITION TO THE REGULAR UTILIZATION OF SURVEILLANCE

TECHNOLOGY THAT IS AGAINST THIS. WE HAVE SEEN AND DEMONSTRATED

THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPLY WITH ELECTED AUTHORITY, WHETHER IT BE THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO

COMPLY WITH OVERSIGHT OR OVERSIGHT BY THE SUPERVISORS, OR

OVERSIGHT BY ANYONE. THEY ARE VIOLENT, THEY ARE

DESTRUCTIVE TO SOCIETY.

TODAY I AM CALLING SUPERVISORS TO ASK YOU TO PLEASE CONTINUE

YOUR EFFORTS TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO SURVEY EVERYBODY AND

CONTINUE TO INCREASE EFFORTS TO BRING INTO OVERSIGHT.

IT IS DEFINITELY CALLED FOR. IT HAS SPILLED OVER INTO OUR

SECURITY OF DEMOCRACY. WE CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE

ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THEIR USAGE

OF SURVEILLANCE AND AT ONE TIME THEY WERE WILLING TO BREAK THE

LAW.

WE CAN SEE THAT THEY INTEND TO

DO IT AND OPPRESS OUR ABILITY TO SPEAK AND TO POLITICALLY OPPRESS THOSE THEY DISAGREE WITH.

WITH THAT EVIDENCE ALREADY HERE,

I THANK YOU FOR THE MEASURE AND THE MAYOR'S ACTIONS HERE ARE

DEPLORABLE. I HOPE WE WILL SAVE VOTERS ON THE BALLOT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO

NEGOTIATE A WAY OUT OF THIS AND TO BRING THE LAWLESS SFPD.

>> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.

CAN WE GET THE NEXT CALLER, PLEASE?

>> GOOD MORNING, I AM FROM D2 AND URGING THAT THE MAYOR

WITHDRAW THIS ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY

OF A BALLOT MEASURE. URGING THE SUPERVISORS TO

SUPPORT THE CURRENT IN-PLACE

TECHNOLOGY SURVEILLANCE LAW.

THERE ARE WAYS FOR THE P.D. TWO,

WITH COMPLIANCE, USE SURVEILLANCE, WHICH IS

RIDICULOUS, BUT THEY VIOLATED IT AND THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO REPORT IN NOVEMBER WHAT THEY HAD DONE, AND HERE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF

FEBRUARY AND WE DON'T HAVE A REPORT. THERE'S NO TRANSPARENCY, THERE'S NO ACCOUNTABILITY. NO, WE CANNOT SUPPORT A

SURVEILLANCE PROPOSAL THAT TAKES UP ALL THE -- TAKES OFF ALL THE

GUARDRAILS. HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY. LET'S SHOW OUR CITY AND THE

PEOPLE OF OUR CITY SOME REAL LOVE AND SUPPORT WHAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT CALLER, PLEASE. >> CHAIR PESKIN, HONOURABLE

SUPERVISORS, MY NAME IS BRIAN. HERE ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED --

OF SECURE JUSTICE. WE ASK THAT THE MAYOR WITHDRAW HER BALLOT PROPOSAL. WE APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER BY CHAIR PESKIN AND CHIEF SCOTT ABOUT WORKING

TOGETHER ON A YOUTH POLICY WITHOUT HAVING TO INTRODUCE

COMPETING BALLOT MEASURES. THIS BOARD HAS PROVEN IT IS REASONABLE BY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVING ALMOST 19 SEPARATE CAMERA POLICIES, SUBMITTED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

IN ADDITION, SFPD HAS PROVEN IT IS CAPABLE OF NAVIGATING THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK AND HAVING

SUBMITTED POLICIES. WE PROVIDE FREE TRAINING TO MUNICIPAL STAFF AS THEY ATTEMPT TO NAVIGATE THESE MECHANISMS IN

THE BEGINNING AND WE DID WORK

WITH POLICE ON THIS TO APPROVE POLICY. PROVIDING THE SOUND PLACE TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL RED FLAGS AND

HOW TO MITIGATE THEM.

WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE TEAM AS THEY SUBMIT FUTURE PROPOSALS. NONE OF WHAT THE POLICE HAVE

SAID RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A

CHARTER AMENDMENT. THEY ARE SEEKING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC USES FOR PARTICULAR

TECHNOLOGIES. THAT IS BEST SUITED FOR A USE

POLICY DISCUSSION AND WE ARE HAPPY TO HEAR THE ADMINISTRATION ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS MORNING.

WE AGREE IT IS TIME FOR THE RHETORIC TO CALM DOWN.

NO ONE CONDONES A VIOLENT CRIME OR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE TENDERLOIN. THE POLICE CAN SUBMIT THE

REQUEST OF THE EXISTING FRAMEWORK AND WE WILL WORK

TOGETHER TO ENSURE IT IS CREATED.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON

THIS ITEM.

NEXT SPEAKER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT SIX FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON LEGISLATIVE VERBIAGE, BUT IT SEEMS UNNECESSARILY BROAD.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MASS

FIREARMS AND BURGLARY ARE IN THE SAME CATEGORY. FURTHERMORE, PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS INCLUDES AREAS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A DOCUMENTED

INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIMES OVER A 14 DAY PERIOD OR LONGER. SPIKE IN CRIME OVER A SHORT

PERIOD OF TIME IS LIKELY TO BE

AN ANOMALY, GIVING SFPD TO USE LIMITED OR MISLEADING DATA TO TARGET AREAS THEY SEE FIT. CHIEF SCOTT ALSO MADE A COMMENT

THAT CERTAIN THINGS CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT IN THE PROCESS, BUT SOMETIMES PROCESSES CAN'T BE

MORE EFFICIENT OR STREAMLINED.

TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE

USING A BIZARRE AND UNCOMMON BURGLARY EVENT TO JUSTIFY SPENDING SURVEILLANCE. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS NEW ORDINANCE. THANK YOU.

>> NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM A COMMUNITY ADVOCATE WITH

THE ASIAN-AMERICAN LAW CAUCUS.

WE ARE ONE OF 36 LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY 10TH TO THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS. SHARING SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH

THE MAYOR'S MEASURES TO UNDO IT. THE ASIAN LAW CAUCUS HAS LONG WORKED WITH CIVIL RIGHTS AND

CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE BAY AREA RESIDENTS, INCLUDING IMMIGRANTS

AND PEOPLE OF COLOR ON HOUSE POPULATIONS AND -- UNHOUSED POPULATIONS AND RELIGIOUS

MINORITIES.

THE BOARD HAS RECOGNIZED BEFORE

THAT SFPD HAS AND CONTINUE TO DISPROPORTIONATELY AND UNDULY TARGET THESE COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES, MAKING THE ORDINANCE CRITICAL TO PROTECT

THEIR PRIVACY.

SURVEILLANCE IMPACTS ALL OF OUR LIVES.

THIS IS WHY THE ORDINANCE MUST BE PROTECTED.

COMMUNITIES MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE IN OVERSIGHT AND TRANSPARENCY TO POLICING AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES THAT IMPACT THEM AND THE MAYOR AND THE SFPD SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SIDESTEP THE

CITY. OUR COMMUNITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO AND ACROSS THE BAY AREA HAVE

LONG ASKED FOR LESS, NOT MORE SURVEILLANCE REFLECTED IN THE CAMPAIGNS ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT

HAVE SEVERED THE CITY'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE JOINT TERRORISM TASK FORCE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT HAVE TARGETED AND HARASSED OUR

COMMUNITIES WITHOUT SUSPICION.

WHAT WE HAVE LONG ASKED FOR IS

MORE INVESTMENT IN HOUSING, HEALTHCARE, AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS THAT HELP OUR DIVERSE

COMMUNITIES TO THRIVE. WE ASK YOU TO DO ALL IN YOUR

POWER. REITERATE THE SFPD MUST COMPLY

WITH THE LAW AND THAT ANY AND

ALL EXCEPTIONS BE SUBJECT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES PROVIDED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND

CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM A RESIDENT OF DISTRICT FIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO SCALE BACK THE CITY'S SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE. IS CONCERNING THAT MAYOR PREET HAS SEIZED UPON FEAR ABOUT CRIME AS AN EXCUSE TO PUSH FOR

DANGEROUS LEGISLATION.

IT GIVES THE SFPD UNCHECKED AUTHORITY TO USE REALTIME SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE IN ANY TECHNOLOGY WITHOUT PUBLIC OVERSIGHT.

IN 2020, THE POLICE EVEN BROKE

THE LAW TO ILLEGALLY SPY ON

BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVISTS AND

THIS NEW PROPOSAL BY THE MAYOR REWARDS THE POLICE FOR LAWLESS BEHAVIOUR. SAN FRANCISCANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY THE POLICE HAVE AND HOW THEY ARE USING IT, AND THE

STRENGTHS TO PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS. WE MUST UPHOLD THE CURRENT LAW. I SUPPORT THE COUNTERPROPOSAL.

THIS IS AUTHORED BY THE SUPERVISORS, AND MY OWN SUPERVISOR TO MAINTAIN OVERSIGHT OF POLICE SURVEILLANCE.

THERE MUST BE GUARDRAILS TO HOLD THE POLICE ACCOUNTABLE AND ENSURE TRANSPARENCY.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, NEXT SPEAKER.

>> HI, I AM THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ORGANIZER WITH CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT POLICY CENTRE. I AM CALLING BECAUSE I, ALONG WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

SUBMITTED A LETTER TO OPPOSE THIS NEW LAW THAT GIVES VIRTUALLY UNCHECKED POWER TO

SFPD TO USE THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE

SUPERVISORS TO OPPOSE THIS LAW

AND KEEP THE PREVIOUS LAW.

THERE IS REALLY NO REASON TO

GIVE UNCHECKED POWER AND

SURVEILLANCE DATA. THE USE OF FEAR AND FEAR

MONGERING FOR CRIMES. THIS IS AN ARGUMENT THAT HAS

BEEN USED FOR A DECADE TO CRACK DOWN ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR,

AND FOR COMMUNITIES AND ACTIVISTS.

WE ALREADY HAVE PROVEN RECORDS

OF SFPD ABUSING POWER.

I STRONGLY URGE THE SUPERVISORS TO OPPOSE THIS NEW LAW.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GREETINGS.

I AM CALLING -- I DON'T NEED TO

ECHO ALL OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID. EVERYONE HAS BEEN VERY ARTICULATE IN WHAT HAS BEEN SAID. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DO WANT

TO SAY IS IF THERE IS CHECKS IN

PLACE, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON

FOR REMOVING THEM? THE ONLY REASON WE WOULD WANT TO

REMOVE THEM IS BECAUSE --

[INDISCERNIBLE]

-- THAT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. I AM GOING TO SAY THAT I REJECT

THE MAYOR'S ATTEMPT --

[INDISCERNIBLE]

-- I ASK THAT YOU NOT SUPPORTED AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER. >> HELLO. I AM NOT A DISTRICT EIGHT RESIDENT, BUT I WILL ALSO SAY HI TO SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN AND

SUPPORT -- URGE HIM TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE TO STRENGTHEN THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE. I COMMUTE INTO THE CITY TO WORK

AND ALSO TO SEE MY ADORABLE 18 MONTH OLD NIECE.

I REALLY WANT HER TO GROW UP IN A CITY THAT SUPPORTS CIVIL RIGHTS AGAINST BACKLASH AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SEEING RIGHT

NOW IS A BACKLASH OF CIVIL RIGHTS. WE SAW IT IN THE EIGHTIES AND

NINETIES AND THEY GAVE US THE SYSTEM'S MASS INCARCERATION THAT OUR COUNTRY IS DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW. WE ALSO SOUGHT AFTER THE MOVEMENT FOR BLACK LIVES.

WE SAW BLUE LIVES MATTER, THE

THIN BLUE LINE AND THAT GAVE US DONALD TRUMP. NOW THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO IS FACING A BACKLASH AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR

SURVEILLANCE AND JUST AS IT DID

UNDER THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENT IN

TIME FOR THE CITY TO STAND UP

FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND TAKE THE DIFFICULT BUT ULTIMATELY CORRECT STAND AGAINST THE BACKLASH AND TO PROTECT ITS RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT SPEAKER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I AM HEAD OF LIBRARY USERS ASSOCIATION. I LIKE TO COMMENT ON ITEM EIGHT,

FILE NUMBER 22, CONCERNING ACQUISITION AND THE USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO

SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE THE MOTIVES AND MUCH OF WHAT IS IN

THIS, BUT ARE CONCERNS THAT ITS FOCUS LEAVES OUT CERTAIN VERY IMPORTANT INTRUSIONS AND

SURVEILLANCES ON THE PUBLIC.

WHAT IS PROPOSED TALKS ABOUT

BASICALLY CONTROLLING WHAT DEPARTMENTS MAY DO WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY OR ACCEPTING AND EXPANDING GRANTS TO PURCHASE SUCH MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SURVEILLING CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC. WHAT THIS LEAVES OUT IS THE PUBLIC'S COST ON CERTAIN TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE VERY SURVEILLANCE RICH OR EXPENSIVE. THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT,

APPARENTLY AND I AM CONCERNED THAT IT MAY NOT.

BUSINESS MODELS WHICH ARE IN USE THAT INVOLVED RENTING OR USING THIS SOFTWARE, SUCH AS YOUTUBE

THAT IS BEING USED TO TRANSMIT THIS VERY MEETING, YOUTUBE IS OWNED BY GOOGLE. THEY ANNOUNCED RECENTLY THAT

THERE IS NO ANONYMOUS VIEW ON YOUTUBE BECAUSE GOOGLE OWNS IT.

IT DOESN'T, AND IT ALSO EXCLUDES THIRD-PARTY USE OF INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN GOTTEN SUCH AS,

FOR EXAMPLE,, ZOOM FOR LIBRARY VIRTUAL PROGRAMS. THE PEOPLE USING IT ARE SURVEILLED ON IN THE LIBRARY DOESN'T GET THE INFORMATION, BUT THE VENDOR OF THE SUPPLIER DOES. WE HOPE THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE THOSE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. >> NEXT SPEAKER. >> WE ARE DOING OUR LAST DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE IF THERE ARE

ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS ONE MOMENT THAT WAS OUR LAST COLOR. >> PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. WE WILL SEE WHAT THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS HOLD. HOPEFULLY, AS I SAID, WE WILL WORK IT OUT UNDER THE DOME AND

IT WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD IN THE FORM OF THE APPROVAL OF

FUTURE USE POLICIES AND TWEAKS TO THIS SECTION OF CODE. THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN

FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN 2019.

SUPERVISOR CHAN WAS A MEMBER OF

THIS BOARD, BUT WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON SOME AMENDMENTS UNDOUBTEDLY IN THE

FUTURE UNLESS WE ALL END UP ON

THE BALLOT, IN WHICH CASE, THE

CHIEF AND I GET TO GO TO A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC CLUBS. OKAY.

WITH THAT, I WILL MAKE A MOTION

TO FILE ITEMS SEVEN AND EIGHT.

ON THAT MOTION, A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> YES, ON THAT MOTION...

[ROLL CALL] THE MOTION PASSES WITHOUT

OBJECTION. >> COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE LAST ITEM?

>> YES, ITEM NUMBER 9 IS A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE ORDINANCE SUBMITTED

BY SUPERVISORS TO THE VOTERS FOR

THE JUNE 7TH, 2022 ELECTION ENTITLED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CAMPAIGN AND GOVERNMENT CODE

CONDUCT TO EXPAND THEIR

PROHIBITION ON THE SOLICITATION OF BEHEST OF PAYMENTS TO INCLUDE

CITY CONTRACTORS SEEKING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' APPROVAL AND TO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND SUPER

MAJORITY APPROVAL THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL BEHEST A

PAYMENT RESTRICTIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. COLLEAGUES, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SORRY FOR OUR LATE START, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE

GOING TO GET DONE HERE AFTER THIS ITEM AND I WILL KEEP IT BRIEF. I THINK WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH

THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS ITEM AS IT HAS BEEN PASSED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. I WON'T CALL ON THE CONTROLLER, BUT JUST REPRESENT THE FACT THAT

THIS MEASURE WOULD NOT INCREASE ANY COSTS TO GOVERNMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE COSPONSORS

WHO SIGNED TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.

SUPERVISORS CHAN, PRESTON, MAR, AND PRESIDENT WALTON.

FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THIS ISSUE OF PUBLIC POLICY, WHAT HAS

BEEN PUT FORWARD FOR THE JUNE

BALLOT, UNLESS REMOVED ON OR BEFORE MARCH 4TH IS VIRTUALLY

IDENTICAL TO WHAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PASSED IN DECEMBER. THAT IS AN ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBITS CITY OFFICIALS,

INCLUDING AMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ELECTED TO DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM SOLICITING

PAYMENTS FROM PARTIES TO HAVE MATTERS PENDING.

IT IS AN AREA THAT WAS RIPE FOR CORRUPTION AND AS WITH EARLIER

ITEMS REGARDING REFUSE DISPOSAL,

THE INTENT OF THIS MEASURE IS TO

BOOK AND A DISASTROUS AND

EMBARRASSING CORRUPTION SCANDAL.

IN FACT,, AMONG THE HIGH-PROFILE

INSTANCES THAT WE HAVE CITED IN THE CONTEXT OF PASSING THE LEGISLATION, OR PAYMENT SOLICITED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR FROM RECOLOGY. IT IS ALL QUITE CONNECTED. THIS IS YET ANOTHER

ANTICORRUPTION MEASURE.

FRANKLY, BECAUSE I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MY CODE OF USING THE BALLOT AS THE LAST

RESORT, THE REASON THIS HAS BEEN

SET FOR THE BALLOT IS BECAUSE I WORRY AND HAVE SEEN THESE TYPES OF POLICIES AND LAWS WATERED DOWN IN THE PAST.

AND THE REASON WE ARE PUTTING IT

ON THE BALLOT IS BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE, IF APPROVED BY THE

VOTERS, A MUCH HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR WATERING IT DOWN OR CAUSING OTHER MISCHIEF. THAT SAID, THERE IS A POTENTIAL PATH TO AVOIDING THE BALLOT FOR

THIS MEASURE. I THINK THAT MUST INCLUDE USING

OUR LEGISLATIVE POWER AND THAT OF THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO MOVE THESE PROVISIONS FROM ONE

CHAPTER OF THE CODE TO ANOTHER

CHAPTER SPECIFICALLY CHAPTER 2 OF THE CAMPAIGN GOVERNMENTAL

CONDUCT CODE WHERE IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A HIGHER VOTE

THRESHOLD TO AMEND BY THE BOARD

OF SUPERVISORS, IN ESSENCE,

PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. AS REGULATORS RECEIVED TO

REGULATE THEMSELVES, THOSE ARE OFTEN THE EASIEST REGULATIONS TO UNRAVEL, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

WHETHER AT THE BALLOT, OR

THROUGH COLLABORATION WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION.

I WOULD LIKE TO SUBJECT US TO A HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR AMENDMENT.

THAT IS THE REASON IT IS BEFORE US AND I WANTED TO SHARE IT

PUBLICLY AND GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO WOULD LIKE TO

COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?

SUPERVISOR MANDELMAN? >> THANK YOU, CHAIR PESKIN. I WILL SAY THAT I WAS SURPRISED

TO SEE THIS IN MY BINDERS.

AS I WAS LOOKING OVER THE AGENDA

FOR TODAY BECAUSE I DID THINK THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD

DONE THIS AT THE BOARD WAS TO

AVOID THE NECESSITY OF HAVING TO

GO FORWARD TO THE VOTERS.

WE STILL HAVE SOME ITEMS AND CONCERNS. THERE WILL BE A DUPLICATED FILE FLOATING AROUND THERE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TRIED TO FURTHER

ADDRESS. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT PRIOR

EXAMPLES OF WATERING DOWN THERE

HAS BEEN OF PRIOR ETHIC -- ETHICS LAWS PASSED BY THE BOARD.

>> YES. I CAN TELL YOU THAT.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CLASS

OF 2,000'S BOARD LATE IN THE TWO THOUSANDS PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE

ETHICS REFORM THAT WERE GUTTED, IN PART BY THE BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS THAT WAS SEATED IN

2009.

THAT CHANGED THE THRESHOLD FOR LOBBYISTS, LOBBYING REPORTING, AND THEY HAVE SINS LARGELY WORKED THEMSELVES BACK INTO THE

LAW.

THEY LARGELY GUTTED SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKED ON TOGETHER IN A COLLABORATIVE

FASHION AND WAS WATERED DOWN.

THE FILE WAS DUPLICATED.

THERE ARE SOME MOVEMENTS AFOOT

THAT I AM ENGAGING IN, BUT DUBIOUS ABOUT.

I THINK WHAT I AM SIGNALLING HERE IS IF WE MAKE ANY FINAL TWEAKS OR CHANGES, THAT WE MOVE

IT TO CHAPTER 2 OF THE CAMPAIGN IN THE GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT CODE

AND MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR FUTURE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND ETHICS COMMISSIONS TO WATER IT

DOWN OR OTHERWISE GOT IT.

>> GOT IT. >> WHY DON'T WE OPEN THIS UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 9? >> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT

415:  655-0001.

THE MEETING ID IS 249-50524358 AND PRESS POUND AND POUND AGAIN. IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, DIAL

STAR THREE TO LINE UP TO SPEAK. FOR THOSE ON HOLD, CONTINUE TO WAIT UNTIL THE SYSTEM INDICATES YOU HAVE BEEN AN MUTED AND YOU

MAY BEGIN YOUR COMMENTS. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE EIGHT CALLERS ON THE LINE.

LET ME DOUBLE CHECK IF THERE IS

ANYBODY ONLINE TO SPEAK. THERE ARE NO CALLERS ONLINE TO SPEAK. >> PUBLIC COMMENT IS GOING ONCE,

GOING TWICE, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO FILE

THIS ITEM. >> ON THE MOTION TO FILE THE MATTER...

[ROLL CALL] MOTION PASSES WITHOUT

OBJECTION. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY CONFIRMATION BEFORE WE ADJOURN IN THE

FEBRUARY 22ND, 2022 AT 10:00 AM MEETING? >> I JUST NEED TO GET FINAL

CONFIRMATION FROM VARIOUS

PARTIES, SAN FRANCISCO GOVERNMENT T.V., TECH CHAT AND FARTHER -- FINAL APPROVAL FROM

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE BOARD. MY THOUGHT IS IT WILL PROCEED AS

SCHEDULED FOR THE FEBRUARY

22ND MEETING AT 10:00 AM. >> OKAY.

COLLEAGUES, MAR YOUR CALENDARS.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, IT IS

VIRTUALLY CERTAIN THAT THE ITEMS

THAT WE CONTINUE TODAY AS AMENDED WILL APPEAR ON TUESDAY,

FEBRUARY 22ND, 2022 AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE RULES COMMITTEE AT 10:00 AM.