Rules Committee forwards board nominees and accepts transit camera report

The Rules Committee accepted a report on the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency's surveillance cameras on Monday after questions about privacy, data sharing and what the program costs, then forwarded appointments for two city boards and a youth advisory committee to the full Board of Supervisors.

No item drew an objection, and no vote split.

The report is the agency's biannual accounting of the surveillance technology it operates. It covers red-light cameras and automated speed enforcement, which photograph vehicles and lead to citations mailed to their registered owners. Most of the technology covered produced no violations or complaints, the committee was told. Automated speed enforcement drew public comment on privacy and on how the data the cameras collect is shared, and on whether that data could be kept inside the city rather than handled by an outside vendor. The cameras run under the city's surveillance rules, and the report is the regular check on how those rules are followed.

Existing safeguards address those concerns, according to the presentation to the committee. Members' questions focused on the money side: how much revenue the citations generate and what the cameras cost to buy and run. The committee accepted the report and forwarded it to the full board without objection. The report is a periodic review of technology already in use, not a request for new authority.

The rest of the meeting went to appointments, which the committee handles as hearings. Applicants describe their work history, the public gets a chance to comment, and members decide whether to send each name to the full board, which makes the final appointment.

For Assessment Appeals Board No. 1, the committee heard from applicants whose backgrounds ran through commercial real estate appraisal, property development, leasing and valuation. Applicants described their professional experience and members weighed it against the work of the board. One speaker in public comment supported an applicant who was not at the hearing. The committee recommended the nominees, granting residency waivers, and sent the names to the full board without objection.

The two assessment appeals boards hear the same kind of case and are filled the same way. They take up challenges from property owners who dispute the value the city has placed on their property, so members are expected to understand how property is valued and how those challenges are argued. Those valuations affect how much owners pay in property tax, which is the main source of money for city government and schools.

For Assessment Appeals Board 2, a single applicant appeared, describing a legal background and earlier service on the board, and telling the committee there was no real estate experience to add to it. No one spoke in public comment. The committee recommended the applicant with a residency waiver and forwarded the recommendation without objection.

For the Children, Youth and Their Families Oversight and Advisory Committee, the committee heard from one applicant, who described experience in the child welfare system and work with youth empowerment and advisory bodies. The oversight committee advises on the city's Children and Youth Fund, and the Rules Committee recommends people to the full board for its seats. No public comment was offered, and the applicant was recommended without objection.

The clerk told the committee that items it acted on would generally appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda on November 10.

None of the appointments takes effect on its own. Each recommendation needs the full board's approval before the nominee is seated, and the waivers the committee granted for nominees who do not meet the residency requirement for their seats need the board's sign-off as well. The surveillance report goes to the full board too, which receives it in the same way.