tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 21, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
>> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the april 15, 2019 meeting. seated to my right is rules committee vice chair shamann walton, and to my left is gordon mar. substituting at clerk is linda wong -- thank you, linda. and i would like to thank jason and jesse at s.f. gov tv for staffing this
meeting. >> please silence all cell phones and electronic devices. all documents should be submitted to the clerk. items actor upon will appear on the april 23 border of supervisors' agenda, unless otherwise stated. >> chairwoman: we have received a request to move item four to the top of the agenda. i thought i would therefore take four and five, which are both mayoral appointments to the public utilities commission. first -- is that okay? can i have a motion to move items four and five to the top of the agenda. so moved without objection. that motion passes. >> and can you please call item number four. >> motion approving rejecting sophie maxwell to the public utilities commissioner for a term ending august 1st, 202. would yo2022.item five, for a tm
endings august 1st, 2020. >> chairwoman: great. supervisor maxwell, welcome back. >> thank you so much, supervisors. who knew i'd be back in this room. but, again, thank you so much. i received a call from the mayor asking me if i would serve on the public utilities commission. and i said yes because when the mayor calls and asks you to serve, dow. i've had a long relationship with the p.u.c., certainly in my district. as supervisor walton knows, we are home to the infrastructure of our city, the sewer plant and the power plant. i started my advocacy working for the southeast alliance for the environmental justice because pg&e wanted to build a bigger plant there. and so neighbors and community members got together and we fought.
and we were able to make sure they didn't build another one, but not close that one. so when i became a member of the board of supervisors, that is one of the things that i, along with my community and pg&e, even, and the p.u.c., were able to close some of the old deficit and most polluting power plants in california. and we have the southeast sewer plant, again, home in our district. a lot of people have real plants and flowers, and we have the sewer plant in our district. while i was on the board, we, along certainly with the p.u.c. and the city decided to redo that plant and make it state of the wart. and that started certainly in my district, and i was able to meter with them able to meet with them and talk about the design and where it should be locator, and i was able to go to florida and look at new process dealing with
sewage, and able to go to sweden and look at their state-of-the-art, and met with many, many architects around the country about what a new state-of-the-art sewage plant could look like. here we are today, and i'm asked to be part of it. what could i say? i think it is important for the city, and it is also important for our community in the southeast sector. when people flush the toilet, we know what it goes. other people might not, but people in the southeast sector of the know where that sewage goes. i think it is important to be part of that. that we are considered when they talk about closing gerald street, which is our only access to the freeway, forever, or even for a short period of time we wer can work with our supervisor. again, i thank you and ask for your support. any questions? >> chairwoman: thank you
so much. i had a couple of questions. do you have a question, supervisor? [inaudible] >> chairwoman: first of all, i want to say in my opinion, brilliant appointment on the mayor's part. the fact that you worked your entire career to, you know, redesign the sewage plant, and now get to getting to see that project through through the position of the p.u.c. is incredible. i can't think of a more qualified and knowledgeable person to see that project through. so i'm super excited. i just wanted to ask you a little more. as you know, i've been working with several of my colleagues on the board with p.u.c. staff and the mayor to break our ties from pg&e, and to transition to green, renewable, publicly-owned system. clearly it is an incredibly complex
operation or endeavor, i should say. we need to think about the valuation of the existing assets, and the stability of employees to work currently for p.g. an pg&e, and alternatives for requiring infrastructure and ongoing site structures, and opportunities for community benefits. what do you see as the most significant opportunities and challenges for this endeavor. more or less, i just want to hear your thoughts on this. >> i will try to suppress my glee. i will try to behave myself. but i think powers should be publicly held. it should be a public utility, not-for-profit. i think san francisco is in a great position. we already generate power, so we know about generation. and i think this is a prime opportunity, and
employees will be better off with san francisco because it is not driven by money and by profits, but it is driven by the utility and by the importance of the utility. so i think that the -- they will be better off. i think the city will be better off. if you look at there is an alliance of public power cities, cities that have public power. and if you look at that alliance, public power in every single account is less than what pg&e charges. so i think will be better off, and that money that we get, because, you know, it is revenue-generate, we can build underground in places that are important and that are sensitive to fire. i think the employees will be better off. we probably will need more and better -- more employees. i think there are opportunities. but this is a prime time. and i think san francisco
is in a very unique position to do that. with the board and certainly our mayor being on board with this, this is our time. and so i'm very excited about doing that. and because i feel as strongly as i do, that the power should be held with the people, then i will do everything. i will read everything. i will do whatever is necessary because i think it is a legacy for our mayor. it's also a legacy for all of you. and our city. when we look at our water, what we were able to do with our water, i think our power should be the same way. >> chairwoman: thank you. thank you so much. i just wanted to note we're joined by supervisor peskin, hello. and supervisor walton. >> thank you so much, supervisor ronen. real quick, i don't really have a question, but i wanted to, one, say thank you for being willing to continue to serve. there is not a person more
qualified to serve on this commission than you are. and not am i excited about your willingness, but i'm also excited about your excitement in serving, particular at this time. and i echo supvin supervisor ron nenronen's sentiments. there couldn't be a better time for this appointment, and i wish ey i could take credit for that. the great work that you have done in this role as well, i'm excite todd have you hereexcited to haveyou here. i'm looking forward to pushing this forward. thank you. >> chairwoman: supervisor peskin? >> i'm actually here for item number three. but i would like to concur with the sentiments of
supervisor walton, and i cannot wait to vote to affirm her nomination when it comes to the full board. >> chairwoman: thank you. not a lot of excitement up here about your appointment. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: okay. thank you so much. the next appointee, tim paul son, if yopaulon, if wow lo come up. >> supervisors, thank you. i'm going to reiterate what supervisor maxwell said. but i'm going to preference that with one thing, in my over 30 years of working in the labor movement, i've always advocated in front of commissions; i've never sat on them. but when the mayor called and there was an opening that was a labor seat
apparently on this commission, i was recruited to fill that position. i want to let you know, supervisors, i will be honored to serve in that capacity. the public utilities commission is one of the most important infrastructure commissions and all commissions in san francisco. i'm going to take the job incredibly seriously. i want to let you know i'm intimately aware that this is a position where policy is indicated, and it deals with our water system, our sewage system, you know, the stuff that is going on in the electrical system right now, and i'm going to take that incredibly seriously. i'm going to advocate for workers. i'm also -- as well as i'm going to advocate for the residents and the businesses of san francisco, to make sure that they get the service that they need to make sure that the city continues to work. i think leave my statement at that. and i'll be honored to
serve the people of san francisco. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. i have a couple of questions, and then i'll turn it over to supervisor walton. i've recently read about concerns related to conflict of interests and interference on the s.sph s.f. p.u.c. commission, and considering the breath of unions you represent, i want to know how you will ensure you're able to fulfill your duties while avoiding conflicts. >> just to be transparent, i have spoken to the city attorney's office to say, listen, i would like to be warned as to what could be a conflict of interest. because i know there are things that have come out in the paper, and i was told there will not be any conflict of interest, and if i ever did think there could be a possible conflict of interest, i would get on the phone and
call counsel to that affect. in my opening statements, i did say that as a commissioner, just like all of the other commissioners, i will be making decisions on policies and contracts that are not based on any of my making or anything that i would ever be involved with, other than the fact i would be looking for the best policy that the city would have in terms of the decisions that i would make. >> chairwoman: okay. and then just also asking you the same question i asked supervisor maxwell about our plans to study and hopefully attain the transmission infrastructure for energy in san francisco. can i hear your thoughts on that? >> well, i have two thoughts in particular. one is that during the crisis, especially with the pg&e bankruptcy, which they've done before, as a labor advocate, i'm most concerned with the workers and making sure that their
wages and benefits and pensions are taken care of if there is any type of a transition. that is extremely important to us in the labor movement. and we'll be looking at that as a priority. at the same time, we want to make sure that the residents and the businesses in san francisco are going to get the best bang for their buck in terms of service and dollars and revenue generation that they possibly can. so as a commissioner, i will be paying lots of attention to make sure that this stuff is done. the workers, by the way, are members of a union throughout northern california. they work both in the public sector and in the private sector. so it is not like they're used to not working with public entities. so that's the position. nobody has advocated to me
one way or the other on this particular issue. we all love public power. >> chairwoman: supervisor walton? >> thank you, chair ronen. mr. paulson, i just want to thank you for stepping up and being willing to serve. and i also just wanted to say that you being proactive about the possibilities of conflicts is important, and i want to thank you for being pro-active and asking the right questions and checking in with the city attorney. i want to say from my viewpoint and my standpoint, this is actually a great day for the p.u.c. and us in san francisco because we have two ap poimght appointments whoe qualified and are willing to do the work. you know the importance of our workforce here in the city, and what we need to do in terms of making sure that employees are treated right, and all of the intersections that the p.u.c. is doing across the
city, and how that benefits the community, and what those benefits should be. i'm excited to have you willing to step up and be on board and i'm looking forward to your work on the commission. >> thank you very much, supervisor walton. >> chairwoman: thank you, supervisor mar. before you start your questions, if anyone is standing, if you could try to find a seater. seat. i know the sheriff will probably be here shortly and ask you to go into an overflow room if you're not seated. and i do see a bunch of open seats. so please have a seat. >> i just wanted to echo supervisor walton's comments and really thank both tim paulson and sophie maxwell for all of your commitment and leadership and dedication to our city. and your willingness to serve on the public utilities commission. i really commend mayor breed on these appointments.
i can't think of many other individuals here in the city that would be more qualified, especially to represent labor and worker issues on the p.u.c., and also in the case of sophie maxwell, representing the interests of southeast san francisco in environmental health and justice concerns, which both of those issues are really critical to have deep expertise on it on the p.u.c. at this moment when we're considering potential radical changes to energy distribution here in the city. so thanks again. i look forward to working with you guys on these important issues. >> thank you, supervisor mar. >> chairwoman: thank you so much, mr. paulson. i'm now going to open up this item for public comment. i have one speaker card from francisco lacosta, and anybody else who would like to speak on this item, if you could line up to my left, your right, and there will be two
minutes on both items four and five. mr. decosta behind you, if we could start with him and then if you could line up over here. thank you so much. >> okay. okay. the time is running. set the time to two minutes, please. so i think i'm a different planet. first and foremost, the sewer system improvement project started as a $6 billion. and it's now a $10 billion. if you think, supervisors, this is a joke, it's not a joke. in the year 2000, a ballot measure allowed the constituents to address not just the water system improvement project, but also the sewer system improvement project.
one was carried forward; the other was dropped. today, in the year 2019, the digesters that start wid some sorwith some sort of at of $1.3 billion is now $2.6 billion, with no accountability and transparency. transparency. in fact. the s.f. p.u.c. delayed it by two years. we're tackin talking about a system that is paid by the taxpayers' dollars. and the controller's office is looking into all of the ni nitty-gritty. this is not something where you say something in generality, and think we advocates are going to keep quiet. in fact, we know it is a done deal how people appoint people. but we should appoint
people who really know about the sewer treatment plant and what is going on over there. karen cubin, the project manager, she left. tommy miola left. tony florez left. mark harris, a black person who came out of the rank, left. we want to know what is really happening with the s.f. p.u.c. and i don't approve these appointments. thank you very much. >> chairwoman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i don't know enough about the history of the employees that are being appointed, but i believe that the mayor is making that type of recommendation. i'll go along with it, and i'll stipulate to that. but i want to highlight the points that as far as keeping an eye on pg&e, i think it is ideal that all of these obsolete electrical power line poles must be removed and
all electrical lines must be placed in the inner protective conduit-type of pole system underground to preevenprevent these major fires from taking place, like at the paradise. and during the bad weather and hurricane seasons, you deliver the domino effect that the fact that one pole falls and the cables are all connected together, you have a domino effect. and from the source all the way to the last pole comes crumbling down, and they come crashing down on citizens, parked automobiles, and deaths have taken place. so i want you to hold pg&e's feet to the fire and get rid of the obsolete, old technique way of moving electricity. it is better to move it underground, instead of over ground, over the heads of citizens, and also having them right
along the lines of force and combustible materials, such as forests and parks. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. any other speakers on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i did see general manager harlin kelly come into the room. mr. kelly, did you want to make any comments? [inaudible] [inaudible] >> chairwoman: i have never had -- i wonder if there is a chair that we could put -- okay. first let me entertain a motion to reopen public comment. >> so moved. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes. i would love to make
>> hi. my name is jean buchanan. i asked the committee to reject the mayor's appointment on commissioner sophie. i argued to reject the mayor's decision, and an informed decision -- >> chairwoman: excuse me. choose mexcuse me one moment. this is a different item. the item you're talking about is item number six. and we're on items number four and five. so if you want to stay in that chair, and if we could make some room for you, and when that item comes up, we'll call you to come up and speak. okay? thank you. >> okay. >> chairwoman: okay. sure. thank you so much. thank you.
good morning. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> chairwoman: thank you so much. i appreciate it. any other public comments? >> i'm joh john corso. i'm a san francisco trades building member. i'm here speaking on behalf of tim paulson. i think tim would be great. i believe he's a great labor man. i believe this has been a labor seat for long time. i think we should keep it that way. and we're all behind tim. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. any other public comment on items number four and five? seeing none, public
comment is closed. mr. kelly? >> good morning, supervisors harle har.. i'm really excited to see both nominees' candidates' names forward. sophie has been really involved in our sewer system improvement program on the power side, and also on the water side. she's just been a champion when she is on the board of supervisors. in fact, she was really interested in the digesters and the technology that we wanted to bring as part of the southeast treatment facility. so with that, i'm just so looking forward to working with her. and as far as tim is concerned, tim is really a very strong leader. and i think the fact that
we have a total of $12 billion on our 10-year capital plan on water, waste, and power, and we have the largest water agreement in the nation, that it just makes sense that he be part of the commission and help steer and guide us on how we're going to deliver these projects on time socio-i so i wanted to thank the board for the positive recommendation. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. it looks like we have a lot of enthusiasm up here for these appointments. anybody want to make the motion? >> i move to approve the appointment in items four and five, and move forward sophie maxwell and tim paulson for public utilities commission. >> chairwoman: without objection, those motions pass. thank you. thank you so much. thank you supervisor maxwell and mr. paulson.
ms. clerk, can you please read item number one. >> the hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending october 19, 2019, to the eastern neighborhood. there is one seat, one applicant. >> chairwoman: thank you so much. is ms. jane wheel present? ms. jane wheel? nope, not present. okay. ms. wheel was -- there is an appointment by supervisor matt haney to the eastern neighborhood citizens advisory committee. it looks like she is not here. i want to make sure she is not in the overflow room. jane wheel is not here. so i will open up this item for public comment. if any member would like to speak on this item, please, again, line up to my left, your right. mr. wright, please go ahead. >> whichever person takes
this job, i would like them to take on more responsibility as far as advocate foradvocating for our neighborhoods. i've already demonstrated that other counties are putting together a brand new apartment building complex that has 144 units. the amount of money that is being spent is $56 million. it's a three-story building. and mayor gavin newsom says $500 million is going to be directed towards homeless people only. with that amount of money and with the developer building a complex which i just spoke about, you could build approximately nine three-story apartment building complexes that has a section of 144 units per three stories.
we have a homeless problem in the area of the embarcadero, and there a proposal to build a navigation center there. nine times three is 27, and you could build a 27-story tower in that area down there and get a bigger bang for your buck. and as a result, there is additional departments within the city who are having problems keeping track and providing the services that they've been assigned to. the public defender's office, district attorney's office, 850 lions street. as a result, they keep losing contact with the people they want to help because these people have no place to live. by using this technique i'm offering to you, you can house these people permanently instead of putting them in a navigation center, which is a place where a person can only stay for 90 days, and then you lose track of them, and they end up outside on the street, homeless, all over again. i'll talk to you later and i'll give pictures and
demonstrations to people. >> chairwoman: thank you for your testimony. any other member of the public like to speak on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. given that ms. wheel has, you know, served on the park and rec advisory board for five years, on the better market street c.a.c., and the soma stabilization c.a.c., i think she would be a fantastic representative for district 6. with that, i'll make a motion to approve -- or to send this item to the full board. without objection, that motion passes. item number two. >> to appoint one mr., ending march, 20, 2020, and there is one applicant and one seat open. >> chairwoman: is
patricia sullivan here. good morning, ms. sullivan. thank you so much for being here. >> how are you? >> chairwoman: i'm good. how are you? >> my name is ms. sullivan, and i'm the current board president for the family and child care association for san francisco. and i'm the co-chair of the early childhood education of san francisco. i'm the o.e.c. c. tech and f.c.c. rep. i've been on the c-pac workforce committee for two years. we're working on our proxi plans right now. and i believe family child care has not had a seat in c-pac forever, and this will be our first chance to really have a place where we could actually have a vote. we have an opportunity right now to, i think, really support the city of san francisco and advocate for child care. and i really think that we
have opportunities to do some really great things. so this is a cary room righscary roomright now. >> chairwoman: i know. it is really busy right now. ms. clerk, do we have an overflow room? >> i believe media services is setting up an overflow room in the south light court. >> chairwoman: if you are standing up, we have a couple more items before we get to item number six. we usually don't allow for so many people standing. there is a tv station, and we'll give you time to come back up for public comment in the south light court. you should feel free to go there. thank you. thank you so much for your patience. are there any questions of ms. sullivan? none? thank you so much for your willingness to serve. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: is there any member of the public who would like to speak on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed.
thank you, ms. sullivan, for your willingness to serve. i think you're going to make a great addition to this council. >> i move that we move ms. sullivan forward with a positive recommendation. >> chairwoman: without objection, that motion passes. can you please read item number three. >> item number three, ordinance amending the administrative codes, require that city departments requiring surveillance technology, and the technology ord nanordinance, in connection with any requests to appropriate funds for the purchase of such technology or to expand grants for such purpose, or otherwise to secure technology equipment or other services. >> chairwoman: supervisor peskin. >> i just want to start by thanking supervisor walton as well as president yee
for their co-sponsorship. this does not mean necessarily stopping surveillance, but stopping secret surveillance. it is really the latest iteration of a policy which is not new. it actually has been approved by a number of barrier cities and municipalities starting in santa clara county, and oakley, and even the barrier transportation system. jerry hill tried to pass this legislation at the state level for every municipality in the state of california, but do to the opposition of law enforcement it did not pass the state senate. put simply, this ordinance would require city departments who purchase, access, or use surveillance technology, to develop use policies for that technology through a public vetting process, and make those
policies available to the public on their websites and in written form. in 2014, it was revealed in the context of the black lives matter protest, that law enforcement was using cell phone stingrays, which mount on the top of the vehicles, and simulate cell phone towers, in order to collect information within a certain radius of that vehicle. and it is not just law enforcement. and many of these things have very good public purposes. for instance, we've had recent debates on our public library's use of radio frequency identification. just a few weeks ago, the examiner reported that our own public utilities commission is investing in any com technology that would enable street lamps with video cameras and microphones, potentially capable of recording
street-level conversations, which i believe our budget committee delayed approving the funds for. the aclu recently reported that i.c.e. is accessing information about manage cities across the country to track the deportation of immigrant communities. in fact, many of our own city departments, including the m.t.a., the t.d., and our airport, own license plate readers and use them for a number of absolutely benign purposes. the s.f. m.t.a. uses them to get people out of bike lanes and to issue tickets. but as policy-makers, i think we have a fundamental duty to safeguard the public from potential abuses of these rapidly evolving technologies. and i want to be clear that this is not an anti-tech policy. there are many beneficial uses of technology, including what is before
us today, that we want to make sure is used in the proper way. license plate readers are used to enforce our red light camera laws, and the r.d. helps track the movement of the materials throughout the library, including easier and faster discharging of books. and as many neighbors has reminded us via e-mail over the last few days, security cameras can play a critical role in apprehending criminal for violent theft and crime. and that same information is made available to not only law enforcement and the district direct attorney's office, but also to public defenders to make sure no one is wrongfully convicted of one of those crimes. when we get into trouble is when these technologies are used with ways that are inconsistent with that intent. when it is shared with third parties that would make any of us
uncomfortable. when marginalized griewchegroups,because of the cf their skin, sexual orientation or tracked or substitute surveillance. it is oftentimes these marginalized groups, artist and political dissidents that are subjected to this policy. that is not just an american phenomenon. it is an international phenomenon. there is also the much more mundane but insidious impact of the abuses of this technology which prevent people from moving around in public with the anonimity that makes our society a very different place in policed states. i think it is important that people have the confidence that they are not always being watched, recorded and tracked. the impact on society of
this type of constant surveillance was actually the subject of an extraordinary piece over the weekend in the "new york times" by jon quang, calling "feeling safe in the surveillance state." if you have not read it, i commend it to you. for me, personally, i think this is the difference between wanting safe and secure communities on the one hand, and not wanting to live in a surveillance state on the other. and don't get me wrong, i dont think san francisco and our government is anywhere close to being a surveillance state, but having these use policies and having a public transparent discussion and vetting of them i think will help actually make our community safer. when i first became a supervisor almost 20 years ago, i had a high degree of skepticism about the need of certain surveillance technologies. but fast forward 20 years, as barack obama said about same-sex marriage, my thinking has evolved around the use of some of
those technologies. and today i've been seeking funding -- actually obtained funding last year for more security cameras in chinatown. so this is not about preventing this technology. it would not prevent neighborhood watch groups from sharing relevant information with the police or the district attorney or any other law enforcement agency. but this is about saying we can have security without having a security state. this is about saying we can have good policing without having a police state. and good policing really is about, as i just said, building trust with the community based on good information. and this policy would provide the information policy-makers and decision-makers need to ensure that government is using technology properly and not in ways that either on purpose or inadvertently pose any threat to the general public. and i'll tell you, actually, the general public gets this and really wants this type of
basic oversight. the voters said as much last november when 70% of san francisco voters approved proposition "b," the privacy first policy, in san francisco. a set of policies to protect the personal information of our residents and voters. and a poll just done by the american civil liberties union just revealed that 76% of voters state-wide and voters in the bay area, support a law to require public debate and a vote by lawmakers before any surveillance technology is obtained or used by government or law enforcement. i would like to put that in the record, if i could hand that to the clerk. and, colleagues, i have copies for you. 79% of voters disagree with government being able to monitor and track a person using bio-metric information. we have received a number of comments in the last few days. actually, we have received
a lot of comments, and there are letters in the file, and i want to thank the aclu of northern california and the folks at extraordinar secured justiced the coalition on homelessness, the council on american-islamic issues, faith and action bay area, green line institute, the harv harvey milk club, justice for mario woods, national center of lesbian rights. open privacy, san francisco democratic sobristsocialists of america, te transgender law center, i'm sure i've missed some from the letters they have in the file. but we received,sall of us, since about friday or
thursday, a number of e-mails alleging that this legislation has been rushed. and i just want to clarify that this policy was introduced over two and a half months ago, and has been the subject of extensive reporting in virtually every local publication from the chronicle to the examiner, s.f. weekly, and the public press, and national and international press from the u.k. guardian to the atlantic. we've also heard from a lot of department heads, and i want to thank the various departments who have reached out to my office. and today i'm going to introduce a broad set of amendments. some of those are still in front of the city attorney and need to be approved as to form. i, quite to the contrary, do not want to rush the process. i'll introduce those and speak to those today. that will require a
one-week continuous. at that point they will be approved as to form and to be continued -- i'm sorry, madam chair -- to a third public hearing. with those discussions within the city, through a wide array of departments, my office took the step of presenting this before the committee on information technology at a public hearing in march. and i really want to thank not only my staff, lee hepner, who has been working very, very hard on this, and i want to publicly acknowledge mr. hepner for his work. but i want to thank in particularly bill barnes for helping work with the departments that would be impacted by this legislation. so with that, i can go through the amendments. i do want to say that many of the e-mails that we
got -- and if you looked at them carefully -- were identical, and, actually, some of them still had the brackets that said "insert your thing here." and somebody was kind enough to actually forward me where those all originated from. and i'm going to hand them to you, and one for the clerk, just so that it is part of the record. and they originated in a blast e-mail from the police officers' association. and i would just like to give you those. so with that, colleagues, if i can just walk through -- again, let me reiterate that these proposed changes will be the subject of at least one, and i believe two more, committee meetings, and if this panel chooses to send this to the board of supervisors, of course will be subject to two readings at the board of supervisors.
so i have handed out to you actually -- madam clerk, i know my staff just brought in the most recent iteration. i believe you all have an earlier iteration. there is just a few cleanups. if you want to pass those out. i have it here. so on -- starting on page four, lines six through 10, this was actually a very helpful recommendation from the port of san francisco, and i'd like to thank them for their advice on that. and it actually, in some ways, tightens the intent of the law. that is the four lines from line six to line 10, that read the description of products and services acquired or used in the preceding year to the extent not already included, including manufacture and model numbers or the identity of any provider who's
services are essential for the technology, equipment, or services for the intended service. on page four, line 22, insert the word "specific," that's just a clarification. on page five, lines three through six, this is language that parallels the limited exemption for the d.a. and the sheriffs under state law, "any such written certifications specify the surveillance technology in question and be subject to public discourse." on page five, lines six through seven, this is to narrow the facial recognition surveillance exemption. on page five, just a cleanup, add the word "technology." on page seven, lines 21 through 24, to remove lines 21 through 24,
subsection 10, and that was a request from the house of labor, particularly the united educators. on page eight, lines 10 through 11. as an exemption for tech that ensures safety security of city property and city vehicles, which was requested by the s.f. m.t.a. and the fine arts museum. you can see that the words "used solely to monitor safety and security of city facilities, including city property and city vehicles." on page 10, this is to set forth the committee on information technologies current jurisdiction over consideration and approval of technology, acquisitions, and this reflects the negotiations that i mentioned with regard to the city administrator's office, and i again want to thank mr. barnes for that.
on page 11, lines eight through 13, the departments made the case they cannot be in the position of asking every single time they receive information from a third party whether it was acquired through the use of facial recognition technology. this amendment, nonetheless, preserves the prohibition on the city's acquisition of an affirmative use of that technology. page 1 11, lines 21 through 23, places further conditions on the sheriff's any potential exemption from the ordinance, any written information that it interferes wi -->> page 12, lin8 through 21, lessens the administrative burdens on the departments seeking to
acquire additional technology that is already subject to approved surveillance technology. on line -- on page 12, line 22, this clarifies existing language in the ordinance to mitigate some of the blowback from neighborhood watch groups. i think it is very clear nothing in this chapter 19b shall be construed to prevent, restrict or interfere with any private person providing information derived from surveillance technology to any law enforcement from conducting any criminal investigation, provided any such receipt to the use of information is consistent with approved surveillance technology policy. and all of these will be available to the public
after this hearing. and if people want electronic copies, we'll provide them. page 13 is just -- lines five through six is a little cleanup. page 13, lines 14 through 16, this is language that in exchange forgiving departments indefinite extensions of time -- and that's very important because there were a number of departments that were worried they could not comply with the conditions around existing technologies that they have, and this allows indefinite extensions. we don't want them to be extended forever, but with good cause we would continue to give extensions. and in exchange for that, this provides a point of transparency that will allow public policy-makers to prioritize the most urgent policies.
on page 13, that is the reducing the administrative burden by allowing the aforementioned extensions. and lines 15 through 16, further explaining coit's role around annual surveillance reports. and the rest is really cleanup. so i would like to introduce those today, and before we go to public comment, i would just like to offer bill barnes from the city administrator's office a moment, and, again, thank him for his clacollaborative role with my staff. >> good morning, chair ronen, supervisor peskin, bill barnes from the city administrator's office. they share a little known group called coit, which stands for the committee on information technology. the board of supervisors is represented on it
through the board president. they do two things. they establish technology policy for the city and they approve purchases of any project over $25,000. when this legislation was initially introduced, it suggested that the departments would come to the board individually with their policies. we were concerned if we didn't have a city-wide look at everything, we wouldn't have the best policy. we approved supervisor peskin's office and said can we have coit be kind of a clear house on this issue. i'll give a really brief example. a few years back, drones were in the news, and mayor lee said we're not going to buy any drones until coit takes a look at it. the p.u.c. in the up country use drones to monitor wildfire risk and that kind of thing. but we don't approve drones flying over populated areas for the uses that were mentioned.
we think there should be strong policies and data sharing, and data retention, and those sorts of issues. the amendments supervisor peskin has put support -- based on what we know, we move this legislation in a positive direction. coit would make a recommendation, and the board would still have its authority to weigh or not weigh in. and individuals can come to coit or they can come to the board to make their views known. i just wanted to raise two quick examples of surveillance that we talked a little about that were actually helpful. this board passed legislation requiring tel telematics, so we could understand when people were speeding. and everybody thought that was a good idea. and m.t.a. said that was important. so that's an example of what some people may think of surveillance, but serves valuable
information. and when we're trying to maintain the safety and security of our buildings. we're a major metropolitan area. we want to make sure if we see something, we say something. so those sorts of uses were actually also excluded in the legislation that the supervisor put forward. while there will be some examples that some people disagree on, and some people say maybe we shouldn't allow this or have rules, there are many, many more that are used by the departments that serve the basic functions of the city. coit will review everything. the departments would have to report to coit on what they currently do. that will give us transparency on what is out there and then we can have the discussions. lastly, this will be continued not just once but twice, so we reserve the right to come back with additional thoughts. we would like to thank the author for his help. thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you.
and explain what those uses are, what the plans are. the last thing we need is a rogue city department preaching a tool or policy that ends up violating the rights of individuals, because that never happens. we know it is not true. this does allow us to vet the unintended consequences of using certain surveillance tools. it protects individual rights, but it also protects the city from any litigation that could come from any such violation of rights, so it is important that we make policy that is good for the city as well while we have the conversation about how we use technology to keep our community safe, and again, i want to commend supervisor peskin. a lot of leadership from city departments working together on the amendments -- amendments.
i know some changes were needed to make this the best legislation possible. that is why we will continue to have this conversation. i wanted on the record that this is thoughtful legislation. we have not rushed to how this has been formulated. as you can see by the number of hearings and the many times they have brought this year to the body. thank you again to supervisor peskin. i just want our community to know that safety is first and foremost, but we have to protect rights as well. >> thank you. if there's no other comments from my colleagues, i would like to open this up for public comment. i have a bunch of speaker cards, and i will call out a few names. i know this room is very crowded again, there is an overflow room , but i will ask people whose names i call to sign up to my left or right. [calling names]
>> and i will call some other names after we get through this testimony. go ahead, whoever. >> first question, alice is not going to speak, can she yield her time to me. >> she can. >> each speaker will have two minutes. >> supervisors, i'm from stop crime s.f. we have not seen supervisor peskin shasha amendments of our comments on the legislation as written. creating policies for security cameras and technology makes good sense, yes there are serious several -- civil liberties questions at stake, but the devils are in the details, and there are a lot of doubles in the details at this ordinance. first they ar