>> good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today monday, july 11, 22. i'm the chair of the committee aaron peskin joined by supervisor connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. mr. young could you make your announcements. >> boards are convening hybrid meetings providing remote public comment via phone. access is essential and take public comment as follows. first public comment will be taken on each item on the agendaful those in person allowed first then those on the phone line. for watching channel 26, 28, 78 or 99 and sfgovtv the public comment number is streaming across the screen 415-655-0001. then enter the id24842226106 and press pound and pound again. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be muted and listening mode only. when your item come up and public comment is called, those in person should lineup to speak and those on the phone line should dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. if you are on the phone remember to turn down your television and all listening devices you may be using. we will be taking comment from those attending in person and public comment phone line. alternateively you may send in writing e mail them to myself the rules committee clerk @victoryoung @sfgovtv via e mail tell be forwarded to the supervisors included as part. file. sends written comment u.s. mail at our office city hall 1 doctor carl don b. goodlet place. that completes my comments y. thank you, mr. young i would like to welcome rafael mandelman who joined us. i have a request to cure item 3 out of order. could you read item 3? >> yes. an ordinance amending the business and tax regulation codes to permit the tact collector make public certain information regarding the vacancy tax and the failure on file vacancy tax returns for tax years 22 and 23. >> okay. colleagues we heard this item on june 27 we dub indicated the file and our hearing some amendments that are suggested by the treasure tax collector's office. the rest of the file will be at the board of supervisors tomorrow. and i would like to welcome mrs. amanda frooed from the tax collector's office. as to the remaining amendment which would wave the pen for failure to timely file vacancy tax returns for this and next year as we ease in this new tax regimen. mrs. freed the floor is yours >> thank you, good morning supervisors. thank you for having me today. the piece is specific to the filing the filing penalties and just to give a bit of context. the way our business taxes work is that we ask taxpayers to come in and file. that is a fancy way of saying give us information about their business. based on what than i share their taxes are calculated and than i pay it is when we do in april you tell them how much you earnd and they say how much we owe and you pay. we always had in place some penalties for businesses that fail to file. it is part of their responsibility. so, that is just a standard part of our code apply to business taxes. in looking at the vacancy tax there are a couple things we are we are aware of and wanted to get ahead of. one, it is i new tax whchl we implement a new tax we think who is this challenging for? who might this be confusing for? and often make concessions in the first few years to make it easy for tems to sxnd get used to the new system. with the vacancy tax it is more unique because we have it is in the a one to one relationship. meaning for any given property that falls within the area covered by the vacancy tax you could have several individuals and businesses required to file but some of them might have to pay or 91 of them. that is unique. you could have a small retail shop and we need to hear from the property owner. we need to hear from the whofsh is leasing the pace and they have a sublease for part or all of the space. each of those need to come in and file every year. that will be confusing. we'll do our best. letters are going out to explain it. we understand that land lords and small businesses might be confused. i'm not vacant why do do this. i don't need to pay attention? we wanted to focus on the first 2 years on finding the businesses that actually ore the vac analysisy tax. and do a lot of out reach and communication to make sure we are not slapping small businesses with 500 dollar pens for not know responding to our notices. when it is new. and they don't know the tax to begin with. that is why we are here and appreciate all the questions and about this and happy to answer questions that come up. >> thank you, >> thank you for your work on this matter. and your suggestions as to how to ease in. seeing no supervisors on the roster go to public comment on item 3. are there members of the public who would like to comment on this matter? seeing, any remoat commenters. >> yes, for those remote call 415-655-0001. ernd 2842228106 and press pound, pound. you will press star 3 to enter the line. for those in the queue continue to wait until the system indicates you are unmuted that will be your queue to begin we have one caller on the line for public comment. first speaker, please. i'm actually in line to speak on a different item. the item that i thought was going to being first on the agenda. i'd like to be put become in the queue. please. where press star 3 we will circumstantial toll that item next. are there other speakers for this item? there are no other speakers for item 3. >> public comment is closed if there are no comments from members i would like to make a motion to send this to the board with a positive recommendation on this motion a roll call >> supervisor chan. >> aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> chair peskin. >> aye. the motion passes without objection. >> please read item 1? >> yes. item one, is ordinance approving the surveillance technology policy for police departments use of noncity entity surveillance cameras. members of the public who wish to comment on this item when you call for comment lineup. and if you are listening can you call 415-655-0001id is 2842226106, pound, pound then star 3 to enter the line. thank you, mr. young. colleagues and members of the public. chief scott and the police department. let me start by giving a bit of context here. there is a bit of history that dates back to legislation that the board of supervisors passed a time ago in 2019. to regulate use of surveillance technology. and and -- that was not a san francisco first. there were -- more than half a dozen others that passed similar legislation in the age of all kinds of technological advancements be zones, license plate readers. many not used by law enforcement and in the intervening years many departments brought the use policies forward to the board of supervisors all of which after review by the committee on information technology, we have reviewed and passed and adopted and today we have before us the one of a number of use policies that are advanced by the san francisco police department. i would like to -- give a bit more context the use policy that legislation that we passed requires basic information. who has access to the data. where the data can be shared. how it is stored. what training individuals who touched the data are required to have. this is done by santa clara county mou around the state of california. we were the 7th if i recall to adopt this legislation and interesting we have not read the item yet but the next item on the calendar is very similar as relating to military grade hardware used by police departments in the state of california, which is state legislation that is similar to the approach to -- the surveillance legislation. so, but i want to be very clear i think there is misconception in the publicity that i want to clear up now. which is had what is contemplate in the this use policy that is before us is not an expansion of surveillance technology. but is the first time that we had a public transparent consideration of existing use of surveillance technology. this is not an expansion. it is actually a look at the department's current practices. i have i want to tell more about the context, which is after we pass this legislation a number of departments including but not limited to the airport, the municipal transportation agency brought their policies to the board. some did include such as the mta's the ability to live monitor on cameras. and -- the police have not yet brought their use policy forward a couple of years into after the passage of the legislation and things became contentious you will recall that in the lead up to today, late last year, both the mayor and 4 members of the board put competing measures that were headed to the june, 22 ballot. and -- i think to the good cooler heads prevailed the mayor and the board members with drew their measures from the ballot which would are revisited our under lying -- policy set fortin code section 19b. we had a robust candid set of negotiations and discussions that largely ended up in the use policy this is before this committee today. there were still outstanding places of -- disagreement. i reserved my right, as one of 11 of the board to revisit those. i think we should talk about them. the public has not yet had a chance to weigh in. we will hear from them today. what i think would be the best source of action begin the public interest and the negotiations is to hear from chief scott and his staff this morning about the use policy that is before us. ask any questions that we want. i will speak to the 2 amendments that i'm interested in making. but not make them today. to hear from the public and to continue this item one week to our meeting next week where we will have a bit of time for more discussions between this supervisor, mayor's office and the police department. so that's what i would like to do today. and with that, i would like to welcome chief scott and his staff to this committee proceeding. >> good morning. chair peskin. supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. i'm going to open up briefly and then we will have special assistant steeves from the san francisco police department. go through the power point to go into high level details about what we are trying to accomplish with this ask to the rules committee and the board of supervisors. so over all, as you laid out, with the surveillance ordinance that was adopted on 2019, we have a number of technologies that we had to craft policies around. surveillance cameras are one of the technologies that we over -- since 2019, the past 3 years; freely that with thoughtful amendments we can enhance the public safety of our city. and mainly, there are instances and incident this is happened over the last few years. that really has brought the police department to this point. we had the incident in union square with the mass looting and private security cameras and unable to access because it did not meet the threshold that existed in the policy. it is a well known fact and -- there is pervasive flowns activity by way of narcotics dealing. in this area surrounding civic center. and -- they are surveillance cameras privately owned throughout this area that the police department is unable to utilize to be more efficient. and more effective and surgical and apprehending those that are committing those acts. we have a tremendous fentanyl crisis in the city the number one killer in the city and hen for a couple years now. we strongly believe the thoughtful use of surveillance within the constitution, within the values of this city will enhance this police department's ability to address that issue in an effective and efficient matter and hopeful low turn the tide what is going on with that issue. the other thing now with the advent is so many private surveillance cameras throughout the city, for many years. many resident and business ordinance cooperated with the da and the police department after the fact. when we would like to do is be able to and the appropriate circumstances live monitoring, this activity as occurring to have a better chance of app hendzing those committing those acts and preserving evidence and really bring us forward so we can address things role nooim time and not after the fact. il turn it over to steeves who has a brief presentation on our proposal. thank you, chief this . is all happening at a time in our society you know around a national conversation about surveillance. and we are all aware of what happened in the supreme court's rule nothing roe v wade. that opens another conversation. or job here is to find the sweet spot if you will between the maximum amount of privacy protection and public safety law enforcement tools. so -- >> and i we appreciate that and we are in the same place as far as that. we understand and honor people's privacy and we don't want to preach that the balance is us doing our j.w. more effectively while respecting the privacies we are with the board and you on that issue. we have a presentation that will be loaded remotely. appreciate it. you should have the presentation in front of you. i'm special project's manager at sfpd. i'm giving you high level recap of the policy that we are put nothing front of you for consideration. 19b code requires a public hearing process to vet and also revise the anthropologists that we are proposing. admin code 19 b requires an impact report and this is what helps create the actual policy itself. so, i out lines the hearings we had. mar 25 a privacy board meeting. another on march 31, recommended to move forward. we had another meeting at coit and april 7th and another april 21st where coit eventual low recommend today to move to the board. the reason come to rules if it passes through this process. lots of comments a lot of feedback and public hearings we received a lot of comments to tighten our use cases. as well as clear set press on how to request the historical footage and live monitoring. we have 40 policies that will go through the process the tools are surveillance to thes. so far this body has approved our alpr and shot spotter through this process as well. this is a regular process. who are we talking about. the noncity surveillance camera policy. this does not apply to city agency cameras. does not apply to any we have on our buildings. does not apply to anyone we have a financial relationship with. this is our mom and popcorner stores. could be an apartment complex. could be a business district. could be a shopping mall. where they have cameras. i believe there is a camera on every block in the city. so this gives us the right to request footage or live monitoring from those appeal. noncity entity surveillance camera surveillance we are proposing. authorized use case. this all of this language was tightened up through the hearing the public hearings we held. we are proposing a temporary live monitoring during significant evans with public safety concerns or investigations relating to active misdemeanor and felony. the monitoring will cease and sever in the 24 hours after they provided access to sfpd. before this policy proposed there was no time line. so this puts parameters around how we access and make this request. through the policy we have requested created a carve out so officers get a captain rank approval before asking the entity itself for access. the entsity always has the right to refuse. if they do and we think there is probable cause we can seek a warrant through courts and have a judge sign it. the entsity can always say, no. the second is, obtaining and reviewing historical video footage to gather evidence relevant to a criminal investigation. third is requesting and reviewing historical video for purposes of gathering evidence relevant to an internal investigation regarding officer misconduct. >> as to obtaining content issue how does the pd do that like i know it is set fourth in the documents that some cities have a voluntary registry. and what is the duration of that consent and how is it revoked? is it affirmative action of the consentee to sends an e mail? how does that work. >> thank you. what we put in the officer guess to the captain if we are talking about live monitoring. >> how do you this is all basically opt in. the store owner has a camera that you want to access, they have to give you permission. how does this part work? >> sure. there are 2 different talking about either temporary or historical footage. historical footage, what we proposing is to update a form we have, which is a permission to search form. that form exists now. but about property does not have anything to do with video we are adding that a line for video footage that would be given to the store owner sxshg it is store owner would sign their consent. and we valid that. also we document that in our incident report to report out on how many questions we made in a year. that's historical footage. the same for temporary live monitoring. this would have a captain rank approval first and be a request to search we like to create after approved, a more specific form that tracks the temporary live monitoring to track that as well. and how does that work in practice and if i'm one of those owners and i say, yes. does that last for a limited time duration or does it last forever until i revoke it. if i do, how does that work. we are not planning on creating a registry. it sounds like that's what other municipalities do they have registry when is we can a list of camera owners and tap in. the da used to have that. this is not that. we are not trying to create a registry. it is based on a survey of responding to an incident. because we are responds to a 911 call. and surveying the scene and seeing if that owner would gives access or historical footage we are not creating a registry. >> chief? >> i add this is case specific. if we have a problem of -- burglaries in a store and our investigator see a pattern and go to that store who has surveillance and say, we would like to have access to cameras we have a pattern that we think it will help. they go to that retailer and for a specific purposes to ask for permission. in the case of narcotics dealing. we have certain thoughts on this in our city. where it is pervasive. with the community input, with friends arrests over doses or the data we have, that is what would inform the request. and then there are parameters on the back end. steve's -- in a presentation as far as how long that authorization lasts for. why this is very helpful and it occurs to me that -- we might want to be specific that we are not contemplating a registry. and we may also it does not say that in here temperature is silent. but it sounds like -- this is not preapproval. say there was a circumstance happening. what you say is that in practice what you would do is you would go to the st. francis hotel and say, we want a review a live monitor because something is going on down despairsment to see and would you give us access now? compared to we have knowledge of 200 cameras and any time we can sit here at headquarters and access one and light up that corner but it sounds more like this is a real time situation where you will knock on a door and say, can we look through your camera now. >> that is correct and specific to the facts that are informing this request. not -- no audio. just a blanket approval joechl you think setting this forth. and bite way when we have the conversations and we play through certain things, i become more clear. setting this out in the policy might e lay fears and concerns about access. so. let's hold that thought. we have a week to talk about it. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> okay. next slide. i will get them back up. so this is also to demonstrate when we were talking about. this is the flow of historical footage request, a crime happens. than i call 911 we respond. control may survey and see if there are cameras. ask the store owner for footage. many companies have policies they can't give over the historical footage and need a warranty if they say yes, we take the footage just the footage related the incidents. if than i say no we will have the video retrieval officers to seek in a warrant and come back and get the evidence video footage. it go in an investigation file. again it is evidence now and part of the investigation. so -- we go and corroborate with witnesses and interviews. there is another form that tracks this. a prop 115 form a da's form. that is another tracking of the people allowing the historical footage. to mirror what the chief is saying a case specific reason for historical footage because an incident happened. very tiny font. here is more examples relate to a live footage request. we have a few reasons why we want to have access to temporary live monitoring. one is if there is a large events. we want to know what the crowds are looking like. where they are moving. what the behaviors are. whether we need to deploy assets and officers on the grounds. the alternate to that is just physical presence of officers and multiple officer on the grounds. the temporary live monitoring allows us to have a 5,000 foot view of the crowd and how to manage it. >> by the way if you make this part of public record this . is mall and 91 of us can read. i read it you printed one out. but that would be great so people can look at it in the next week send that to the clerk, that will be great. >> supervisor chan. thank you. chair. i have a question specifically about the definition of significant public like events and safety occurrence. men i miss today in the language. could you help me point to the that defines. and it says thousands is there somewhat of a threshold. some event actually have permits, right and than i submit an application. of course, others like prosecute test or you know -- then you would not have. i am trying to, understand is there clear language for both. clear definition on special events and a clear threshold for crowd size. >> certainly. >> page 11 of your policy has definitions. and it has the definition of significant events. listed out. we have defind today the large or high profile even in the city traffic company, barricades and crowd management. special investigations. escorts for home land security unit. sf opposite a sign to stop terror or criminal attacks may require efforts during the efforts based on activity during live monitoring allows for aware ness and coordinate resources based on information obtained. that is the definition of significant evans in terms of a threshold we did not define that simply because with protests and we will in the slides we talk to get more in the detail busy that. but there are counter protests and there are no matter the side there can be an i have lent counter protest. and if we left it to a threshold we would not be able to temporary live monitor. home land security talks about national white supremacist or organizing really well and effectively on the line. right now to handle all protests. now. so -- if we limit today to the size. say it was a 30% march and a proud boy plan to deal with it, we would have to wait until they it unfolded or when injuries or fatalities reported. we wanted to make sure we were able to keep peaceful protests peaceful. thank you. i agree the size perhaps at times does not matter if it is a small grouch people if they are violent. it is a problem no matter what. i think that i agree what chair peskin said in the beginning of the conversation that it is like how do we reach the balance between i look forked to the rest of the presentation to protect the first amendment as well as balancing public safety concern. i am eager to see how can we in language to further define these events. how would that carry out and would appreciate in your presentation to point to specific example if you could. thank you. will i'm not sure if we need more on this slide. >> thank you. retention. this is another thing that 19 b rivers to be out lines in the policies we talk about the data retention. data retention had it miss to video footage because the video footage is considered evidence. it is beholdant to california penal code evidence code and even statute of limitations. what we draft in the our language is this we will keep the video footage like we would with evidence and tied to the crime. so we need enough time for the investigation and then if a homicide we keep the evidence long are than a misdemeanor. we give more of a demonstration and illustrate why we would keep video footage. they are in protected files. they are not available to the public. it is our investigative file. next slide. first amendment activities. this is and was important and all of our discussions with the hearings this were held through coit. sfpd's prop to handling of public dem tragsz has 2 components. facilitying and upholding first amendment and ensuring public safety. if it is peaceful it is protected. we than protests are important. it is our job as law enforcement to ensure the rights of peaceful protesters. there are situations where other groups will infull trait and create chaos. cocktails are thrown and there are injuries, there are large crowds, there are barricades broken. there are store fronts broken into. that is in the a first amendment activity t. is our job as law enforcement to ensure that everyone has the right to demonstrate and express themselves. but we have to maintain the peace that is a balance we have to strike within this policy. so with the -- our own policies also that00 autodepartment has policies through the police commission and heavy public process stake holders provide recommendations we have our own policy internally that was adopted bite police commission that shows us or tells us how to deal with first amendment activities. we are leaning on that to furthermore how we will handle first amendment activity. that first line relates to the approved dgo. we can conduct criminal investigations when well is a reasonable suspicion to believe. and this is out lined there. we would like temp refer live monitoring for purposes of deployment and addressing criminal activity or public safety hazards. we are not monitoring the crowd. i should make it clear the live monitoring is not recorded we are monitoring if there is a crime that takes place we would go back and ask historical footage the live monitoring is actual when will is sounds like. monitoring the cameras. not a large aim of data that come back to track who was at the protest. if there are questions? no , i gallon back to retention. and -- i'm not going to do it today i will leave it for our discussions but i want to raise my interest inmenting to tight retention period for surveillance footage to retention periods set forth in state law it it is a change but the prosecute pose to retention period seems arbitrary and might lead to stockpiling of footage in a way not necessary we can deal had in the next week >> we are agreeable to that. amendment. as long as it lines with evidence laws we are agreeable. >> great. >> next slide, please. prohibitions this is not the entire list. more robust list. listed in the policy wee wanted to highlight we -- have veteran thought where we do not want to live monitor or don't want to impede on people's rights to navigate the world as they see fit. so we are prohibited from monitoring groups or individuals based on race. gender or sexual orientation. race may not be used as a factor for initiating please action. prohibited from accessing live feed during first ma'am activities reasons out of redeploy am needs. and members shall not use surveillance footage in cooperation with or arc cysteding u.s. immigration or customs or customs and boarder protection in investigation or arrest procedures public. where any such instance the expressor purpose is the enforcement of federal immigration laws. san francisco is 12h and i and have our own dgo mentioned before adopted bite police commission and went through public process. i believe there was a working group with that one. with how to deal with enforcement with immigration we have to comply with that as well. 19b requires we note any training required. or that keeps the data safe. i wanted to make it clear thata our officers have a lot of training and where relates to live feed or video feed i wanted demonstrate that there is a lot of training around the civil learnt's impacts that are around you know video footage and live monitoring. so,or officers are required take laws of arrest, search and seizure. presentation of evidence. crime in process. incidents crime scene and forensic. discrimination and terrorism and here say testimony. and cyber security training offered throughout city and our department offers mind set response training. 810 is first amendment activities. they have hatrain and a video retrieval training i 2 day training for the video retrieve and crowd control training and [inaudible] training. next slide. thank you and i mean it sincerely over dialogue we had over the last several months. and i think the spirit of this honors the first amendment and honors privacy. where the rubber hirts the road is what happens in practice. right that is why training is important and the policy in 19b requires you to speak to this, this looks like probust training one thing that is not -- i skipped ahead to -- your next slide that is not addressed is -- what happen in practice? which is -- what are the internal accountability mechanisms for what happen when is the chain of command breaks down and somebody violates the spirit of the policy or the letter of the policy. what does the department do to ensure accountability? let the chief talk about discipline. thank you, chair peskin. the accountability proisz, for any rules violations get can and will initiate a personnel complaint investigation. that is handled by internal affairs division the other per of this because of 19 b and the report thanksgiving goes with this, is that the logs and anything having to do with surveillance by design of the ordinance you weigh on. is -- logd and it is transparent to the public. the impact reports a part of was explained by the part of the process. but for if a member of the public believes a violation occurred there is i process internal and ecsternally in terms of bringing that to light and the investigation internal low will be done by internal affairs. this process is only as good as the systems we put in place to make sure that we don't wait until there is an incident to address it all the forms that have been created and some need to be developed, if this gets passd and we see what it looks like, there will be a strict reporting process for this the last thing we want to do is break the confidence of the public and the board and anybody else that has a stake in this. by not having the processes to monitor and be able to not whether or not we are following the rules. those processes are forming and -- once this if it passes, whatever passes we will then be able to finalize that process. so those processes are tight, strict. and we can go about our business in an initiate manner. >> thank you, chief. >> i want to point out on page 11 in the actual policy it talks about the sanctions. so that's out lined and piggyback on what the chief was saying once this is approved we have to issue a written notice to notify staff this is now a policy. and we will be an ordinance, right? we have to work with the academy to see how to train on this policy if passed. and -- next slide. i believe this is our last of slide. but 19 b also requires the impact report and this is where, you know we have the civil learnt's considerations that is all placed in the impact report. i wish it could be in the policy but it is a separate document. impact report where we consider the civil liberty's immack and when we impacted the right to privacy. equal protection of the law and mitigating measures to address the potential impacts. that is the separate report not up for approval but it is it goes along with this policy. i believe that is it. >> thank you for that. i don't know if there are questions or comments from committee members. i wanted to daylight the other amendment that i am good in of, which is excising the live monitoringef for with privately owned cameras. during active misdemeanors and felonies. and it sounds as you use this in practice the reality is, well is a call. you are probably i understand it in significant circumstances i understand -- that -- it is always been departmental policy in significant events. but i'm worryd that could lead to monitoring of folks who don't think they are monitord and in practice you are knocking to say can we access your camera now. i'm00 eye think that that could allow for constant live monitoring we can cross that bridge in the week and the chief and i had a good discussion about it this morning. but if there are no questions or comments from members at this. supervisor mandelman. >> i am trying to not that. of as -- well, yea. you have been looking at this more closely than i have. live monitoring during investigations i assume that is, what we are really talking about when the rubber hirts the road here is drug dealing. and i think that -- the 8 to pull historic footage can give the cops what they need in making a case. that is one. two, the chief and i discussed, the which requires a bit of research on the pd's part. historically. this policy only deals with third party private cameras. the please use their own cameras. we don't have that policy yet. in dealing with i'm going back a few years but cameras in police vans that were used for prostitution and arrests and drug dealing crimes. we needed xrieration there. i'm worried that when you say active misdemeanors means you turn on cameras anywhere. you turn them on all the time that might go past the sweet spot. and they can pull historic footage to make a case. chief. >> thank you. in the case of of the dealing and usage. open air drug usage is a problem as dealing is. and there are locations across the city in this area and the civic centers and across the city it is pervasive. we get a ton of community complaints. and able to see enclaves where people do that activity. is helpful. and us being able to address it but the other thing is also it goes beyond the drug dealing. we have locations in the city where we have gun violence that is pretty pervasive and -- traditionally, there are intersections and corners we see the same thing repeated over and over. if we have information, about the possibility of shooting and ingredients are there for this event to happen. to me it just makes sense to tap in if surveillance cameras are there that are privately owned tap in if we have good information that the requests. the notion is you think it will happen not useful to have police around watching what is happening. but you want to respond in real time because someone showed up you know wouns see that person show up you know somebody will get shot. >> right. we think it will help we will up or deployment and we will still do that but the other part of this if it does happen. to be able if you have the access to video feeds and having vehicle descriptions and suspect descriptions and things you get out in role time. is very helpful and makes us effective. those are things that are helpful and we want to make sure to supervisor chan and supervisor peskin and yours as well. we left lane is a balance and want to strike that balance but not ignore the 8 to tap in technology that the help the public safety of the city. >> we'll all talk. >> thanks. why don't we go to and chief i know you gotta run. go ahead and we will convene in the intervening week and see you or your command staff next week. um -- why don't we open up to public comment for item one. >> one moment. members of public when wish to peek and joining in person lineup to speak along the wall. if you are joining us via telephone you can press star 3 at this time to enter the line. you will be in listening mode only. once for those in the queue continue to wait until you are unmuted and that will be your queue to begin. we have 14 callers on the line. i don't see anybody in the room for public comment at this time. we have 14 on the line for public comment. first speaker, please? i'm alexi i'm speaking as a 32 year residents of district 8. first i'm shocked that the police chief would be excused from lynching to the public's comment this is extremely disappointing. staff is here for the second time. >> not good enough j. i'm here for the second time to express my strong opposition to the surveillance related proposals being considered by the board. the san francisco police department proposal proves again that it is bounds and determineed counter man the will of the people. the people they are pid and pledged to serve. and are now take to institutionalize their past unacceptable behavior and violate privacy rights. 60% of san front voters opposed police access to live monitoring of private cameras. i need to understand how a single merchant store camera will give them a quote, 30,000 foot view of the public event. the police department needs to confront the past. why did it survil me while i was protesting george floyd's murder by police? they need to address these issues before the chief worries about losing trust. he lost it. and -- they need to address that before they seek to implement these policies. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello this is magic @man it ironic the chief brings how he ksdz not access the union square cameras for looting and illegal accessed them during the black lives matter prosecute test x. there was a suit against theys the united states court said the fourth amendment presents conducting electronic surveillance involving person present in the united states without a search warrant. can we go become at this time search warrant for all. if you ask an individual business in an area, for looking at camera and they say know you think the police will be kind in helping the people in the future. we don't want to pay for our government to spy. i lived long enough to remember we were appalled how russia was spying on people. there is no sweet spot here. the whole thing leaves a bad taste and we want our representatives to not get us the pay to be spied on. this whole discussion you are calmly and nicely talking to each other is appalling we don't want your spies. we don't want to be watched we don't want anything but a search warranty if proved to be important. and i'm just appalled at the whole discussionch it is another thing from mayor greed and her corporated cronies wanting to protect themselves. thank you. next caller. hello. i'm a coordinator for the council on american relations sudden fran bay office. our office involved with pushing for the passage of the san front surveillance ordinance and recognition ban. this is this proposal is concerning because you know the idea of getting local thousands of local -- cameras to be providing live feed of footage, it is definitely concerning. because and i know that you know if the city were to acquire thousands of surveillance cameras, this would be like on their own this would be concerning proposal. this is, this is exactly that is happening. we'll have access to thousands of cameras of footage for a time. and it is concerning to our privacy if there are prosecute tests. first amendment prosecute test and people who are living their daily lives or accessing reproductive healing or attending mosques or church services or what not. people don't want to have their movements monitored. i'm speak against this proposal. this is concerning and i hope that the board will consider this a concern as well. thank you. why thank you. before we call on the next speaker. one of the public comments i will -- say that -- the lawsuit that was brought over the monitoring at the floyd george floyd protest was one by the city and lost by the aclu. next speaker, please. >> good morning i live in district 8. and i work at a private college in the city. i'm firmly opposed policy this expands police surveillance in i have lalgz of our civil rights. upon giving the live access to monitor citizens poses a threat to our first amendment right to privacy and freedom of speech. this policy is currently written is an extreme case of over reach and a privacy risk for all and visitors track in the role time going about their daily lives. i think this policy has the potential to be abused. broad range of t and unfairly targets protesters, black and brown communities come anyone seek an abortion or gender affirming heck. this would cause a ripple affect across state and federal law enforcement agencies who could gain access and target citizens. therefore, i urge the board of supervisors to further refine this proposal and protect our civil rights. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning to all member of the rules and everyone in attendance. i'm [inaudible] a 47 year resident of the mission. in district 8 but in district 9 recently. and i wanted call to register my strong opposition to this surveillance policy. and i continuing come down to whether you trust the san francisco police department or whether you trust the aclu. both of home oppose this law this legislation that is proposed today. i would ask supervisor peskin, chan special mandelman who side they think is right about what the concerns are here and what the likely impact of this policy are? do they think it is the aclu with long history of standing up for civil liberties and close working relationship with peskin, i know or do they think it is sudden front police department which has a long history of monitoring survilling protests arresting peaceful protesters as mentioned by a couple of callers the black lives matter protest in 2020 they arrested peaceful protesters not involved in looting or fire setting or anything and including ones who were protesting on the last day or the state of emergency. that the mayor and the board of supervisors went ahead and instituted to make sure that protesters could be rested. they arrested a reporter. and loyaled about arresting that reporter i don't understand why you would trust the police department. chief scott had no answer on the accountsability question supervisor peskin asked if you can't get a right answer you cannot vote. >> can we have our next caller. hi. i'm leah and i am a local small business owner. in the city in district 8. in the mission and this is whack. i'm sorry. like as a small business owner i'm hearing this like, about you know, how they want to tap into our cameras. i say, like, i don't have cameras for this reason. i don't trust anyone in a position of authority or power in the city to not abuse it and blindsly give this authority to cops and so i never got cameras. i stands by that and will condition to not have cameras because i don't believe that surveillance is appropriate or effective in any preventing crimes and also -- sfpd is a bunch of bs i walked past 7 officeros my street that had a young gentlemen in cuffs and one guy and he was harmless. he may be crashed his car. there was not damage a bunch cops and getting frustrated my tax dollars going to this bs come oshg man. you know they are stand thering getting paid i don't knowment to know how much. probably make me more mad and i'm paying for it and you are we are all paying for it and they are doing nothing. i'm done. this is whack. that's it. don't do it. >> thank you. next caller. hi. good morning i'm carolyn and calling on behalf of the know front public defender's office who is a member of the san francisco surveillance coalition. thank you chair peskin for continuing this today our office is concerned with the proposed sfpd surveillance policy as written. and urges chair peskin and the committee to work with the coalition this week to add further amendments to ensure the policy protects communities from surveillance and over [inaudible]. the current policy gives police power to monitor live surveillance and check historical footage with few limitations. we hope the policy be amended limit the ability of police to collect footage for trivial offenses and large events it is critical it be amended protect first amendment activity. we feel the police must be ban friday sharing with federal agencies particularly in the post [inaudible] world. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning rules this is paulina a san francisco resident concerned about public safety. i am in support of this ordinance. this is not an expansion of current legislation. it is something we should be able to do. it is not broad monitoring of our life it applies to specific important circumstances including officer misconduct. business owners can opt in or not. people who own private cameras must consent. this is not a registry it is access where appropriate in this case [inaudible]. there are important time limitos how long the footage is retained. this is not violate the first amendment. peaceful protests are protected. there has been a lot of thought begin about where not to live monitor. officer training is extensive. people who oppose this really, irrelevant exageerate what it means they flat out lie. so, i callow to support this if you care about public safety. thank you. >> thank you next speaker. >> can you hear me okay in proceed. on this item if you could post the police department presentation as soon as possible. that would be great. on page 12 of the main dpoument page 18 of the packet, the address for the department of police accountability is listed as one vaness i believe it should be 1 south vaness and if this could be fixed. that would be great. and page 20 the one page city add administrator memo is dated may 18, 2021 i believe that should be mi18, 2022 i think it men important in the future for these dates to be correct on the approvals so if those 2 things can be updated, fixed, changed that will be great. i would include the date and the name of the captain or higher rank who approves a request to surveill in the file not the board file in the investigative file. may be make that a written approval and not just i got it on the phone here is what it was but have them sign something or include the copy of the actual warrant signed by a judge. these are public records than i may be subject to redaction and or nondisclosure they should all be together in the investigation file related whatever incident gives rise to all of this. besides it is policies on the police department website i would post a