>> clerk: the meeting will come to order. i am hillary ronen, chair of the committee. with me on the committee is rules committee vice chair kathrin stefani, and rules committee member gordon an mar. our clerk is victor young, and i'd like to thank sfgov for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any

announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency and city charter, the chambers room in city hall is closed. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda. both channel 26 and sfgtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling 408-418-9388. again. that's 408-418-9388. the i.d. is 1462655364, then press pound, and pound again. when connected, you will hear

the meeting discussion, but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when your item comes up, dial star-three to be added to the speaker line. best practice is to call from a quiet location, speak slowly and clearly, and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may contact us in the following ways. e-mail me at victor.young@sf.gov. finally, items on today's agenda will be acted upon on the board of supervisors agenda on july 14 unless otherwise stated. i believe you're muted. >> chair ronen: i apologize.

thank you. can you please read item number 1. >> clerk: item number 1 is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to create the office of public advocate, set of public advocate's powers and duties, authorize the public advocate to review the administration of city programs and services, including programs for transmitting information to the public and departments' customer service plans, and to receive, investigate, and attempt to resolve complaints regarding city services and programs, authorize the public advocate to receive and investigate specified whistleblower complaints, and to provide for the public advocate's election, removal, and salary at an election to be held on november 3, 2020. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor mar, did you want to make any comments?

>> supervisor mar: i just wanted to make sure you can hear me because i'm getting a little feedback. >> chair ronen: thank you. >> supervisor mar: colleagues, [inaudible] i do have some final amendments that i want to make today that my office has shared with you in advance of this meeting. on page 7, line 18, we've replac replaced notified and confer with confer. [inaudible] that relate to potential disciplinary issues shall be referred to the [inaudible] [please stand by]

. >> chair ronen: okay. thank you. if there's no questions, we can open this item up for public comment or comments. supervisor stefani, did you have any comments? no? okay. can we open this item up for public comment? >> clerk: oh, there goes my notes. sorry. if you've not already done so, please press star-three to be added to the queue to speak. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. mr. kao, do you have any members of the public on-line? >> operator: there are no callers wishing to speak on this item. >> chair ronen: okay. then public comment is closed. supervisor mar, i just have one

question about we had talked about the date for when those elections would be held last time, and i'm wondering if you had thought those through anymore, and if -- had you -- it seems like you're not making any changes, but i just wanted to see what your thinking was on that. >> supervisor mar: yeah. thank you, chair ronen, for raising the question. and again, you know, it's my preference, and as reflected in, you know, the current version, amended version, that we have the first election for the public advocate be in november 2022, and -- and that's really the next available opportunity when we're going to have a general election, you know, after this year. and then -- but then, we have the regular election for public advocate in november 2024, which would be the next general election after that, and that

would be in line with the presidential election, where, you know, we would expect the highest voter turnout, and that's the most voter participation in this important decision. >> chair ronen: my one, just, thought, is the chance we're going to have a special election next year i think is higher than normal, given all the uncertainties around covid-19 and its impact on our economy and our country, so i'm just concerned cost wise about that and wondered if you just want to state clearly that the first election is in 2022, as opposed to the next general election -- or special. >> supervisor mar: yeah. actually, i'm open to that,

that additional clarification and amendment. [inaudible] >> chair ronen: clerk, do you know what that noise -- what that was? >> clerk: we are looking into that right now. we will update you as we -- as we find information. >> chair ronen: okay. okay. so i would like to propose that amendment, as well, then, and to make clear, i don't have the legislation in front of me like i should, sorry, but in the place where it says that the first election for the public advocate should be during the next general or special

election, if we could just clarify that the first election for the public advocate will be during the 2022 general election. i see the city attorney. >> hi, chair ronen. good morning. if it would be okay with you to continue this item until later in the meeting to give our deputies time to prepare that. >> chair ronen: sure. >> i'd prefer to have a couple of minute to see do that because -- minutes to do that because we can't do charter amendments on the fly, so if you'd agree to continue this, and we can bring this back later in the meeting. >> chair ronen: sure. that sounds good. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: yes, that sounds good. >> chair ronen: okay. deputy city attorney ann pearson. thank you. so we're leaving this item as

is and asking the clerk to call item number 2. >> clerk: item number 2 is an amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to create the sanitation and streets department to succeed to specific duties currently performed by the department of public works, to create a sanitation and streets commission to oversee the sanitation and streets department, to create a public works commission to oversee the department public works, to require an annual perform ann audit and cost and waste analysis for both departments, and affirming the planning department's determination under the ceqa at an election to be held on november 3, 2020. >> chair ronen: okay. we're joined by supervisor matt haney. supervisor haney, did you want to add comments and amendments? >> supervisor haney: yes. i do have some comments, and i

do have some amendments, as well. thank you very much, colleagues. i'm very proud to bring this back with my cosponsors stefani, ronen, walton, and mar [inaudible] accountability, public input, policy settings, contract approval, and oversight over these two critical sets of city responsibilities. this item was heard last week, and we had a full presentation and discussion, so i'm not going to go over it in full again, but i want to reiterate a couple of points and then discuss some key amendments we are introducing. i said last week, and this is no secret, san francisco has become infamous for his filthy

streets, and for folks who are worried about any spending associated with this measure, they should also look to any money we have lost because of this reputation. it has serious consequence on our residents and businesses. 70% of comments to a recent chamber of commerce poll said the overall cleanliness of our city has deteriorated in recent years. this, despite the fact we have poured tens of millions of dollars into the d.p.w. budget with little to show for it. it's clear that departmental corruption has paid a role. this isn't about one person or one leader, this is about the structure of government that's failing miserably and lacking in accountability and needs a

commission. the recent controls report made that very clear, and we have provided for that in our charter amendment. but simply putting a commission over public works will not solve the absolutely horrendous state of our streets. san franciscans deserve clean and healthy streets, and the only way we are going to get there is by creating a department with proper accountability, public input, and transparency, with the focused resources and guiding

leadership to get the job done. my district represents some of t the city's most vulnerable residents. we are committed as a city to equity, and so when fate gives us opportunity to make a huge difference in the quality of life of these residents, our priorities should be later focused on getting this done, and we shouldn't make excuses or lack the political will. the tenderloin, mission, and bayview should not have to wait to have clean sidewalks. this is unfair. it is a huge priority and quality of life for these residents, and this will help solve that problem. but i want to make it clear that this is not only about the neighborhoods that are most directly and obviously impacted. this affects every single resident in san francisco. wherever you live, you spend

time in our downtown neighborhoods, you work there, you visit there, and you're also affected by our city's ability to shore economic activity and tourism that's connected to the state of our streets. as our city's legislative body, we must do our part to make sure that the city recovers from our economic downturn and taking care of our streets and sidewalks in some of our city's most visited areas. i'm afraid that our city will never recover. the need for a sanitation department with baseline services, accountability, and transparency is essential to also address the public health concerns related to covid-19. we know that the coronavirus can spread easy. we also know to keep our public areas clean during the pandemic or while we have the threat of

one. san franciscos deserve clean streets and sidewalks now more than ever. this is a public health issue. i've addressed the costs before, but just to reiterate a few things, our residents expect we get the basics right. we have a $12 billion budget, and so many of our residents, especially in district 6, ask, can you just keep the streets clean first. the cost that the controller put forth in this is something like .0001% of our budget. maybe we should start to ask the question if there is something fundamentally broken with the structure that we're referring to. does it make sense to continue to throw precious limited resources into a broken unaccountable system that doesn't get the job done?

that's what this amendment fixes. again, want to reiterate that this measure does not cost a penny over the next two fiscal years when we are most concerned about our budget situation. the board has the authority to have the city administrator provide some additional services to the new department, which will further bring the cost down, and is one of the amendments that we are providing for today. we've also added a clear responsibility of both commissions to do analyses for cost efficiencies and buricracy, and i have no doubt that these commissions will find more ways, inefficiencies in the small costs that have the controller has -- that the controller has put forward. supervisor stefani has put forth an amendment that would delete roughly 80% of the amendment in front of us. i want to be clear, i've been working on this with residents,

with employees, with stakeholders for over a year -- >> hello? >> chair ronen: sorry about that. we're having weird issues this morning with feedback. continue, supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: so we have been working on this over a year. it is carefully crafted. it was crafted with input from employees. i have been in hundreds of hours of meetings about this. it was carefully crafted with input from the people who are most impacted, who we represent. i have sat in on various meet and confers and worked out all of the issues presented, and the charter amendment reflects all of that work. this version was formally announced four months ago. it would be unthinkable to me in the 11th hour -- and this is not even the 11th hour, because

i believe this is the last day that amendments can be taken in committee, really, at the last possible moment that this would be a proposal -- that there would be a proposal to gut 80% of it without consulting me or the folk that's have worked on it. i have only been here 1.5 years as a supervisor, but frankly, i have never seen an amendment to gut a ballot initiative or a proposal in its entirety. i think such a proposal would be offensive, not to me but to the tens of thousands of people in our city that live in squalid conditions. and i note that there were dozens and dozens of people who called in in favor of this proposal last week who also, i believe, deserve some respect in this. if someone wants to propose solely a public works

commission, i recommend that you put that forward in your own proposal. that is not what this is. this is not what we will allow this to be. that is not what we have spent over a year crafting. this is a new department with new responsibilities, with new oversight and accountability. all of that goes together. you cannot cut out 80% of it and expect that the 20% that is left is going to get the job done. it will not. so i imagine -- i'm not sure if that amendment is going to be put forward, but i just want to say, respectfully, that since i have been working on this with my colleagues, with my cosponsors, with the stakeholders, with the workers for over a year, that i would appreciate if that work was not undercut and that was respected. if you are against this proposal, you're welcome to vote against it. if you believe there should be a new proposal that is just a public works commission, i encourage someone to introduce

that separately. that is not what this proposal is, and as the person who has worked on this extensively with many others, i would appreciate if that is respected. with this charter amendment, we have an opportunity to make a real tangible difference on the streets of san francisco. we need this in every neighborhood and for every resident. what i want to do now, just lastly, is go over some of the amendments that are here in front of us that address some of the remaining issues, and i hope that these are the last set of amendments that we will take. on number -- first, on page 3, line 15, we're removing section c under duties of the department of sanitation and streets in the prior draft. the intentional of this was to make sure that there are no yesterday empties as -- no impediments of referring work to the department of sanitation

and streets, but the city attorney has assured me that this would hold true without this amendment. we understand this would create new barriers when it comes to contracting out, particularly with smaller contractors, so we've eliminated this part of it completely. we just wanted to maintain the status quo as it relates to work that is being done in-house or work that needs to be contracted out. so this particular part that had some concerns from some of the contractors, this has been taken out. so if you're listening or planned on calling in for that purpose, we've listened, and that is no longer an issue. we've taken out. next, we've clarified sidewalks to say that nothing shall relieve the owners of responsibilities set forth by state laws, including those laws as may be amended in the future. page 13, under refused

collection update, shall performed the duties assigned to the director of public works by the refuse collection and disposal ordinance of 1932 as may be amended from time to time. page 3, line 13, the board of supervisors may submit an ordinance directing the director and d.p.w. to create a new department saving costs and giving the board the power to change this in the future. again, this allows for the further possibility to reduce costs. allowing the board of supervisors to give the department of streets and sanitation the ability to create its own administrative offices through ordinance. page 4, line 2, we're clarifying that the date of the commission won't start until july 2022, so everything will not start until july 2022,

which means that it will have no impact on the next two fiscal year. page 6, line 2, page 4, line 2, are also just clarifying that everything will begin on july 2022. page 7, line 7, we're removing program management as a qualification. and then, page 8, line 10, we're changing one word there, from may to shall requiring the appropriate bodies to approve and sign off on public works projects affecting city infrastructure and submitting this to the commission. this was something that was very important to our neighborhood allies and colleagues, and we just further worked that amendment out.

and i think pretty much those are the main amendments. you have, i believe, all of the amendments in front of you. we have worked on this many, many months and very, very carefully. it's well thought out. it has the support of, right now, five supervisors. i very much hope that, ultimately, this is something that we can all get behind and that we can all support. it addresses both the need for clean streets and the concerns that have been very broadly shared around corruption. i do not want to see a change by deleting 80% of it today, and again, i appreciate the support of the cosponsors, including supervisors mar and ronen, and i hope that we can have the support of the entire board. thank you. >> chair ronen: sorry. the mute button is going to be the end of all of us. any -- thank you, supervisor

haney. any comments or concerns from my colleagues? >> supervisor stefani: yes, chair ronen. i have my name on the roster? >> chair ronen: oh, i'm sorry. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. let me start off by saying i take my obligations on the rules committee very seriously, and what is before us is something that i investigate and review to the best of my abilities and knowledge, and that includes 13 years of budget cycles here in the city and county of san francisco, three years as the budget aide to the chair of the committee, supervisor farrell, and serving two years on the budget committee as supervisor, also with the knowledge that we're facing a $2 billion budget deficit and in a pandemic with unknown solutions and unknown

consequences at this time. so i want to thank supervisor haney for this charter amendment and for the opportunity to review how to make the situation better. i do know that we have the director with us today, and public works staff, and i want to thank them for joining us this morning. and first and foremost, i would like to make very clear that i, too, condemn the actions of the former director and all of those involved. i want to see changes to public works that would insulate the department's permitting and contract approval processes from any real or perceived personal or political bias. and i know this is extremely important to everyone here, as well. so i do have several questions that i'd like to explore.

first, while i appreciate this program's goal in the transparency and goal in public works, i do have concerns about its potential costs. as we know, and i just said, the city is staring down a nearly $2 billion budget deficit in the next two years. we will have to take a hard look at which critical services will survive, critical services. it is my understanding -- and i want to say, too, that -- about the amendment that i circulated last night to everybody. it is prompted by the fact that i just received the controller's report and the audit. this is something that we just reviewed, and that is the basis of why i put that forward. so it is my understanding that the controller's office has estimated the cost of this proposal before the most recent amendment at between $4 million

and $10 million per year. that's up to $100 million from the next decade. and i was wondering if there was anything from the budget office here, and if so, has your office provide any estimations? >> yes. this is natasha from the budget and legislative analyst's office. the report that we prepared prior to supervisor haney's amendments allowed the board of supervisors to determine the allocation of services so that some centralized services would save money? however, we have listed that as may reduce the cost in the future. otherwise, our estimate stays the same. >> supervisor stefani: and that estimate is what? >> $4 million to $10 million annually. >> supervisor stefani: okay. and also, any new jobs created by this proposal, it seems to

me that they would mostly be administrative positions, is that correct? >> that is correct, however, each commission would also have staff to support the commission as well as stipends for those commissioners. >> supervisor stefani: okay. so these aren't jobs of people out on the streets? >> the costs of those $4 million to $10 million is based on additional staff that are required to split currently centralized administrative support services. >> supervisor stefani: okay. thank you. and provider to becoming supervisor, as you know, i did run the county clerk's office, which received human resources, i.t., and financial support from the office of the city administrator. and it is concerning to me that i'm hearing this proposal, even as amended, could duplicate positions that the city already provides in public works' current configuration by creating a second department, and i'm wondering how might this affect the overhead rate and any contracting out of

services? >> this is a question for the controller's office? >> supervisor stefani: whoever can answer, either the director or the controller's office or whomever can answer that question. >> through the chair, this is howard. may i respond? >> supervisor stefani: supervisor haney, if you have a direct answer, chair ronen, may i ask them to respond to the question? >> i would defer to the director of public works. >> supervisor stefani: okay. director, do you have an answer to that question? >> yes, chair ronen. as we believe -- and by breaking the department up, if it's too small of a department,

it likely would have higher -- you would have a higher overhead rate, because as administrative costs, you're trying to break out with at least emphasis that would add to that higher rate. this is something that, obviously, we don't know for sure right now because it hasn't happened yet, but it's based on everything that we've seen, by splitting a department up, you would see a higher overhead rate which would then likely result in a higher cost that would be spread across the city. >> supervisor haney: can i -- [inaudible]. >> chair ronen: oh, sure. supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: yeah. so, again, this is opinion

shaped very much by the administration at d.p.w. who are not in support of this. we have an amendment today which would allow for the city administrator to provide the administrative support and services to reduce the amount of any additional administrators that are required. that's also noted in the letter, and we allow d.p.w., if we decided as a board to keep costs down, we also amended that to shall, so they will continue to provide administrative support as a way to keep costs down. that's not reflected in the report that's before us. we have in here that there will be a cost analysis to reduce inefficiencies done by the controller and done by the commission which also will likely reduce costs. so there are a number of things in here that would make it so

we don't have to have a handful of new administrative positions in this new department. and i will say, you know, having a director who are hired to get the -- who is hired to get the job done and is accountable is a good thing for our city, so there is some very small cost that will be there. this isn't creating a whole new department. it's taking a part of the department that already exists and breaking it off, which means that most of the administrative functions that it's providing would just be shifted over. so i really do think there are -- even with the way we've written it and within the controller's estimate, we can keep this very low. $100 million, it was odd to hear a ten-year estimate. i've never heard that before. but over ten years, we're going to spend as a city $200 billion, so again, this continues to be .001% of our

budget. >> chair ronen: supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes, i'd like to continue with my questions, if that is okay with the chair. >> chair ronen: sure, of course. >> supervisor stefani: okay. one of my last questions is the potential to lose -- [inaudible] >> chair ronen: we can't hear you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: is everybody on mute? >> chair ronen: i can hear you now. i can hear you now. >> supervisor stefani: okay. i'm going to start over. one of my last questions: the potential to lose efficiency in breaking one department into two does give me great ypause, and i know residents in my district are already unsure whom to call, for example, for bulbouts and many of the things that department the public works oversees. can you give me feedback on supervision for the department

of public works, and that question is for the director. >> chair ronen: director? i think the screen froze. clerk, can you help? i think the director -- >> clerk: we'll find out what's going on with the director, but yes, he is frozen, and he might have lost connection. >> chair ronen: okay. supervisor stefani, do you have any questions while we get the director back? >> supervisor stefani: i do not. i guess we can wait for his answer, but i'd like to proceed with my remarks. >> chair ronen: sure. >> supervisor stefani: just now having received the cost

projections from the controller's office, not the department itself, what concerned me that as a former department head, it is very troubling to me that this department head could duplicate administrative positions, and to the extent that i heard this morning that might be any different was the first i've heard about that. so i do believe that it could create further government bloat and decrease efficiency when we are in the midst of a financial crisis with no end in sight. and i agree with this proposal's goals of increasing government transparency, and i want to thank the sponsor, supervisor haney, for his work on this issue and for raising it over and over again. but there is a way to achieve the transparency and accountability we are all looking forward without spending $40 million and $100 million over the next decade, and that is in the controller's cost projection. so today, i do have an amendment that i would like to put forward to this proposal

that would create the public works commission as the amendment that i circulated to everyone last night, and it's as prescribed in supervisor haney's proposal. but it would preserve public works as one department. and the commission would consist of five members, two appointed by the board of supervisors, two by the mayor, and one by the controller. and it would have all the same powers and duties spelled out in the proposal before us today. my amendment, however, would delete section 4.138, the sanitation and streets commission, and section 4.139, the department of sanitation and streets, as well as any related changes referring to the department of sanitation and streets or the sanitation and streets commission. and i share supervisor haney's concern for supervisor cleanliness and sanitation. but the department would not

provide additional street services. rather, it would increase staffing at a cost of tens of millions of dollars while the covid-19 pandemic has blown a $2 billion hole in our budget. so my amendment puts forth a way of more government transparency and correcting for any inefficiencies that having two separate departments would create. so that is my amendment based on the cost projections and the controller's audit report, and so i would like to make a motion to incorporate this amendment into the proposal today. >> chair ronen: i'm going to make some remarks, but supervisor haney, did you have anything else to add before -- >> supervisor haney: i guess i spoke on this. you know, the costs are so small as it relates to the problem that we're facing and

the impact on our city's revenue from lost visitors and tourism and conventions, the impacts on quality of life. we are likely going to continue to spend tens of millions of dollars on this program, and we're going to throw it into the same broken system unless we make a change. i've never heard a budget over a ten-year cycle, and to say that this costs $40 million over ten years, when our city, if it was over ten years, would spend probably over $200 billion. i've never heard us budget this way. i want to be clear, this will have no impact over the next two years on the fiscal situation. we are, and i am a part of multiple measures that are going to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars potentially on the ballot in november. this is a very small cost to create a structure that can actually get the job done, which will ultimately have an

impact on our city's revenue and the quality of life of our residents. i respect that, and i appreciate, supervisor stefani, that you are in support of a commission. i just want to be clear, that's not what this is. this is a broader proposal that is very well thought out that i've been working on with others for a very long time, and if somebody wants to propose a charter amendment that just creates a commission, i welcome that they do that. that's not what i have -- we've proposed here, and so i -- i could not express in stronger terms my opposition to this amendment that would delete at least 80% of the charter amendment in front of us. i also, on the costs, we're very clear here that, from d.p.w. and the city administrator, they can continue to provide, they should -- they will continue to provide administrative functions to this new department. they will not be duplicating administrative functions here. we need a department that's

actually focused, intentional, accountable, transparent to get this job done. and if not, not only are we going to keep spending money, we're going to keep spending a lot of money on the current structure and not getting results. what we're doing is wasting money on what we would be able to do much more effectively in this different structure. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor stefani, i know how much you care about the city, and especially as the -- my fellow mother of young children on the board of supervisors. it doesn't surprise me that this isn't the same level of priority to you because your constituents don't write to the e-mails i get on a daily basis or a weekly basis, i should say. not daily, but definitely weekly since i've become a

supervisor. i've had parents write to me and say there was a needle in the sand box in the park in the mission today. there is feces on my front door. there was a bottle filled with urine when my kid came outside. i mean, the -- the e-mails that i get not only break your heart, but they're our constituents, the dangers on the streets that we're subjecting them to. i understand that's not the situation in the west part of the city, but that is the situation we're facing in the mission, in the bayview, and the portola and many other areas of the city. i, too, have been on this board

of supervisors working as a leg aide and as a supervisor for ten years. we have everything in our power to improve -- we have to write everything in our power to improve the situations on our street. i have literally woken up with bevin duffy and gone out and clean the streets myself because i couldn't deal with what my constituents have to deal with on a daily basis. i know that's not what you're facing in your district, but that's what we are dealing with here. i can show you the records, and i get those e-mails weekly. that's why we've teamed up for this ballot measure for us to create an opportunity to get the results that we have not

gotten in ten years for our children, for our families that have to face the current situation for ten years on the east side of the city. we have to do something different to get results. we've tried everything else we can think of, and now, we need a new structure. and i see that supervisor walton has joined us. supervisor walton, did you want to make any comments? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair ronen. i really did. just want to start off by saying there was a time that i definitely thought this was a fiscally expensive endeavor, and as we look around, and i walk-through my community, and we see piles of trash on a consistent basis in certain areas, i do want to say that the department of public works does come when we call, and they take care of some of our hot spots when they receive a phone call, and they do it

pretty quickly. but the problem is piles and piles of trash. people in our community treat it as a dumping area, and just this cleanup is very important. we're working on illegal dumping legislation so we can make sure we do everything in our power from a legislative standpoint to keep our streets clean. but we need legislative standpoints to keep our streets clean, and i know that there are certain areas that are not treated equitably when it comes to keeping our streets clean. supervis it is very important to have a dedicated team that is only committed to cleaning our streets. and this shouldn't be something that's looked at as a negative. this is actually giving the

department of public works more tools, more staffing, more resources, so they can do everything they can to keep our streets clean. and obviously, we know with covid-19 and the pandemic, clean streets are also going to lead to healthier communities and make sure that we are doing everything we can, even from a health perspective. and so this minor cost to increase resources and opportunities for us to clean our streets is something that's important. if we can do everything we can to keep the streets clean in the tenderloin and keep the streets clean in bayview and keep the streets clean in the mission, it is also going to support us in terms of our economic viability here in san francisco because we do note that our clean streets obviously attract people, and they want to come into our communities and into our neighborhoods. so i just think people need to really look at this for what it is, and it's actually an opportunity to provide resources, staffing, and a dedicated team that keeps streets clean, and this is something that's a win-win for

all of us, and we should be concentrated on that. as we talk about the fiscal impacts and we look at the budget, i think supervisor haney made a great point when he talked about the billions of dollars that we're going to spend over the next ten years. i think this is something new to get a ten-year cost projection. so i just want to say as a supervisor who has some of the dirtiest streets in this city, this is something that is important, something that our office is excited about, and something that we know that is a need here in san francisco. >> chair ronen: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair ronen, and you posed a few questions to me, and i would like to actually clarify a few of the assumptions that were made. this is, actually, a priority for me, and it absolutely is.

and so is safeguarding the city funds to which we need to spend on critical services. and assuming my district doesn't have these issues is just, i'm sorry to say, flat out wrong, and i'd be happy to show you the text messages i get, the e-mails i get on a weekly basis. i had one mother absolutely distraught who had to take her four-year-old daughter to cpmc after being stuck by alta plaza park. they're in alta plaza park, moscone, it's all over. and it's not just in the park. it's in my district, too. to say that it doesn't happen in district 2, it's flat out wrong. perhaps not as much as in other

districts, like supervisor haney haney's, i will say that, but it is a priority for me. i do get these concerns all the time, and the streets are dirty all over san francisco. so when i see projections from our controller's office that tell me that this will cost us to break up a city department $4 million to $10 million a year, and i do the math in my head that's what we do when we look at capital planning, who looks out ten years, i say to myself why would we do that when we can achieve the same transparency and the same goals -- yes, you might disagree with that, but i don't. and i would rather take that money and actually spend it on street cleaning. so it is a priority to me. it does happen in my district, and the way that i look at the budget and the projections and

the reports and the audits that i've reviewed to prep for this committee tells me that we can do it better with less government bureaucracy, so i hope that answers your questions. >> chair rone >> chair ronen: yes and no. how do you expect things to get better without a change? >> the public works department is the only chapter 6 department that doesn't have a commission. the commission should do the work that the rec and park department does. that would be a change. the changes that are being recommended in the 43-page audit report that we saw from the controller's office are changes that could be made, so there are changes that would be made. so i don't understand why a commission that oversees a department and the efficiencies that have been put in by the new director aren't something

that we would pursue given the fact that we are staring down a $2 billion budget deficit, and we know what the projections are based on the proposal here. so i do see changes, and i do see changes that would be made that would help the situation. >> chair ronen: well, i -- you know, i would just -- you know, i would implore you again, and we can disagree, with you -- but if you received the e-mails, and you saw the conditions, and i encourage you to come to the mission and walk down 15th and see denali and mission and shotwell. i encourage you to look at the conditions that my constituents live in on a daily basis. if you think that changes aren't needed and a thoughtful legislative proposal that would only cost $3 million to $10 million. we spend more on a parking lot

in the city than that. it's really -- you know this budget. you know what a $12 million budget is -- $12 billion budget is. and within a $12 billion budget, 3 $3 to $10 million a year, if it means that our constituents no longer need to have urine, needles, feces and trash blocking their doors on a daily basis -- this is something that is a top priority in my district. i understand that it's not as much of a priority for you because you don't deal with the issues on the streets. i agree to disagree, and i will share with you, supervisor stefani, some of the e-mails i guess because they're heart -- i get because they're heartbreaking, they really are.

supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you. i just wanted to respond to a couple quick things. you know, the situation is we are spending tens of millions of dollars more on the d.p.w. budget every year, much more than $10 million. the issue is the structure that we have, without the accountability, without the focus, without the opportunity for public input, without a director who's hired with those expertise to get it done and accountable to get it done, we're going to keep on wasting money. so we can look at it in terms of, you know, $4 million to $10 million, we should look at it also in terms of what we're losing. the conventions that we lost themselves would have brought in more than $4 million to $10 million. we spend more than this in

d.p.w. on this function, and it's not working. so let's also think about the money that's being wasted. $4 million, the former director of d.p.w. gave out contracts of over $10 million that they said had literally no accountability and were basically to his friends. i mean, when we talk about the money that's being wasted here, this is actually a cost saving and a revenue generating opportunity for us. you know, we spent over $4 million enforcing the curfew a couple of weeks ago. this city has a $12 billion budget, and every day, people are walking outside, stepping in feces, stepping in trash because we aren't getting the job done, and this is a structure that will put us in a position to get the job done. there's a history of this, too. oewd, mayor's office of housing, mohcd, d.b.i., the department of homelessness.

again and again, there have been times because there wasn't an adequate level of focus and accountability, we've changed the government structure to provide for it. i don't think anybody in their right mind would recommend today to fold mohcd or fold the department of homelessness or fold d.b.i. back into some larger department. that would be viewed as ludicrous because of how important that singular laser focus is on that -- those issues, and similar do we have a challenge on our streets with clean streets and sanitation. san francisco right now, if you talk about what is broken, people are saying the state of our streets and sidewalks, homelessness, and making sure that we can deliver on the basics. and $4 million to $10 million at the most, and we can bring it down below that, considering how much we waste overall and spend overall and continuing to add to this budget overall is the right thing to do to make

sure that money is spent wisely and with accountability. >> and chair ronen, i just want to let you know that this is alex, my internet is down in my office, but i am on the phone and able to answer questions. >> supervisor haney: there is one more thing. we get sued for our bad streets and people tripping and falling, and that ends up costing a lot more than $4 million a year. this is -- this is an investment in a system that works and we stop throwing money in a reactive way that is truly wasting our precious limited resources. >> chair ronen: i -- i don't want to belabor the point, but i do want to read an e-mail i received just a few weeks ago just to give you an idea of an e-mail that i receive on a daily basis. it was an e-mail that was

written from my constituent to mayor breed. dear mayor breed, i woke up today with a tightness in my chest that scared me. i realized it was anger, anger at you intentionally converting my neighborhood into a slum. at 65 years old, i am in a high risk category for dying from covid-19. studies have proven that emotional health is essential to a healthy immune system, and that the one's health is related to their zip code. you with the help of jeff kosinsky have turned the block, into just a few months, a full blown slum. urban slums are settlements, neighborhoods, or city regions that cannot provide the basic necessities for its dwellers. you did not respond to my last

e-mail that asked a series of question, so i'm reasking them. the mission is so filthy that i drive to other neighborhoods to take walks. leaving the boundaries of the mission is like driving into another country. there is not a tent in sight, no garbage clogged sidewalks, no urban blight. the failure of your homeless policies do not exist in these wealthy neighborhoods. i have to ask, why do you think it's okay to concentrate your policy failures in the mission? this is not a rhetorical question, and it goes on and on and on. those are the e-mails that i am answering on a weekly basis, dozens and dozens of them. and i promise you that supervisor haney and walton are answering those same e-mails. and i have been -- since the moment i became a supervisor, i

was able to improve the situation for a long time, but it has gotten horrible again, and i am just pleading with you, pleading with all the supervisors who don't have to face what our constituents and we face on a daily basis, to care about the rest of the city and to make the type of institutional changes that will fundamentally change the character of the horrendous conditions that we face on the streets on a daily basis. and with that, if there are no longer any comments, i'm going to -- from my colleagues, i'm going to open this up for public comment -- oh, supervisor mar, i'm sorry. i just saw your name. can you -- i'm so sorry. supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: no problem. thank you, chair ronen. yes. first of all, i just wanted to thank supervisor stefani for her remarks and expressing her support for the need for oversight of d.p.w.s work, and

also even for your questions and concerns around fiscal impact and -- and -- and other concerns around the other important aspects of the charter amendment that would restructure the department. and -- but i would say that's really trying to use the public health crisis to argue against cleaning and sanitation measure is wrong. you know, covid-19 shows the need to invest more in sanitation, not less, so, you know, i'm a cosponsor of this measure, and i feel and am strongly supportive of it with the amendments that supervisor haney has introduced. and as district 4 supervisor, you know, and representing neighborhoods in the west side of the city, this is extremely important reform to move forward now in such a comprehensive way. besides constituent complaints

around muni and sfmta issues, the number one constituent complaints are around d.p.w. issues, whether it's filling potholes, maintaining our street trees, moving forward with much needed pedestrian safety improvements on our streets, and then more specifically, maintaining sunset boulevard, which is such an important greenway in our neighborhood. so this is such an important reform measure for our city, including the west side. and i also, you know, would agree with supervisor haney that this -- the amendment that, supervisor stefani, that you're proposing today, are really problematic from a proper perspective, and considering all the work that has gone on on this measure by supervisor haney and his staff, to introduce such drastic

amendments, you know, at the 11th hour just is very problematic. again, i'm not going to be supporting your motion or your amendments today. >> chair ronen: okay. i'm just looking on the -- it looks like we're good. mr. clerk, can we open this item up for public comment? >> clerk: yes. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 408-418-9388. meeting i.d. is 1462655364, and then press pound, and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star-three to lineup to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may begin your public comment. mr. kao, are there any members

of the public for public comment at this time? >> clerk: yes, there are currently nine callers in the queue. i will unmute the first caller. >> chair ronen: thank you. and every caller -- >> thank you. my name is julia -- >> chair ronen: go ahead. i was just going to say, you'll have two minutes to speak. we'll restart your time. >> hello. my name is julia summers. i'm a microbusiness owner. our business cycles are dependent on construction starts. there's a two-year lag in downturn economies for us. right now, we see our -- although we see our businesses in the service sector dying, we see our fellow restaurant companies, catering companies, event companies go out of

business right now. you are going to see us go out of business in two years. it happened in 2010, and it will happen again. we need you to bolster us right now because how you bolster us right now is how we'll survive in the next few years. we need legislation that doesn't strip vital services for our businesses to survive, and the proposed charter amendment had done just that, so thank you for striking what was a very devastating charter amendment. i want to ask supervisors ronen and haney -- i want to hold you to task. the previous amendment sent a message to small business owners that we could not count on previous san francisco work to survive, and we heard it very loud and clear when we were reviewing the first draft,

and i'm holding you to task to reach out to us small business owners. as a member of the l.b.e. community and speaking to the other members, we were very much caught off guard by this amendment despite all the outreach that was performed over the past few months, so it would have been nice to have been engaged a little earlier. don't forget to engage your small businesses bobecauecausee going to be in a bad position in a couple of years. >> clerk: thank you very much. public comment time has elapsed. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is garrett and i'm from the east community benefit district. as someone who gets e-mails daily, not weekly, daily, that we expect a new department to work in a more strategic and

focused fashion. we think this is a good step in addressing the street agencies of san francisco, particularly in district 6, which is where we're located. to give comments, you know, just a quick comment on supervisor haney's mention of structural issues, to my knowledge, d-6 is still the only district that has no public information officer as part of the city's outreach and enforcement team whose, you know, function is to enforce city codes, walk the streets, issue citations for violations, and that makes our job harder. so if there's budget concerns from certain supervisors, you know, this is concern number one for everyone in the city. this is -- the amount of

e-mails and calls we get daily is always about cleaning. so if there's budget concerns, it's a matter of finding funding from other places and decreasing those sources to increase funding for cleaning. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we get the next speaker, please. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, please continue. >> hello. my name is dara wlilynn davis,d i'm a small business owner in san francisco. i'm lgbt, and i just ask the supervisors considering this amendment, please take into consideration small businesses and the impact on the local small business community as you move forward with this amendment.

and also to keep in mind, you know, that creating additional departments will not ensure that more emphasis is placed on the issue at hand, which is keeping our streets clean. we need accountability within the -- within the agency. even if you have a commission, you must ensure that there is accountability, otherwise, it's more of the same. the department of homelessness, we still have a significant amount of homelessness in san francisco. but most of all, i urge you to look at the impact that this measure will have on small businesses in san francisco who do contracting within the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is belinda smith.

i'm a community organizer in district 6. i really get tired of not being able to look around me as i'm taking my walks. i have to look at the sidewalk to make sure i don't get a mess going. something's got to be done. people that used to come here on vacations don't want to come here because the streets are so dirty. tourism is one of our main resources here, and we're going to lose it all if we don't do something about it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> yes, good morning, supervisors. this is james mabry.

as a small mike owe business out of the district 10 area, i was encouraged by all of you to make this a great progressive vision that you could come up with, and i feel like -- that if this -- if this charter amendment passes, it's going to inhibit our growth as microsmall businesses in district 10. i just want to say that. again, and also in listening, i hear a lot of waste, and then, i hear there's an issue of cleaning within the city. i am a microsmall business cleaning company. i am a solution for you guys. i'm out of supervisor shamann walton's district, 10. i know i have colleagues in the western addition, as well. you guys have a resource to utilize and probably stop some

of the waste and put it in the african american community. so young women and men cleaning in the community, putting us to work. i'm a solution, i'm a resource, and all of the micro, small l.b.e.s are. i heard someone else mention to keep us in the link, keep us in the loop. that would be great, as well. i want to thank you for listening to me, and that's all i have. thanks. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> yes. my name is miguel. i'm with yerba buena engineering construction. i'm also the chair of the l.b.e. committee appointed by the mayor. i welcome the fact that you

amended the proposed legislation to remove the onerous section regarding the subcontracting and the contracting, so i applaud the supervisors having reviewed that and considered that to be, well, bad for small business. lastly, i think it's important that as a resource to the supervisors, i implore you to reach out to our committee. i implore you to have staff come to our committee, see what we do, see how we are a resource to the supervisors and to the commission, and what our mission is, and what our role is. not only to the community in hiring, but also establishing policies that makes things for small business, making sure that activist board meetings -- let's schedule you guys so we

can talk about what we do for the city and for the people. and lastly, i can say that it's a long time that we remove the word acting from the director of public works. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hello? >> clerk: yes, please continue with your comments. >> yes. this is david elliott lewis. my first 20 years in the city, i was in district 2, cow hollow and the marina. it's a different world, i agree. my last 14 years in the tenderloin, and i can -- in the

tenderloin, i can see the failure of the current system, how our system of sanitation and street maintenance has failed. i have personally been injured by -- by broken sidewalks. i've had friends with broken bones, who are bicyclists who have been injured by potholes and repairs. it's been a system of unaccountability and corruption. and it's had real-world consequences in terms of hurting and injuring residents. i think the charter amendment proposed by haney, ronen, preston, and mar really offers promise to fix this broken system that's been broken for decades. i've been in this city 35 years, and at least 35 years, we've had a broken department of public works. so i strongly advocate it. i reject any other amendments to try to weaken this, and i

hope it will be put forward as proposed, this charter amendment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. hello, can we have the next speaker, please. >> yes. my name is amos carter, and i run a small business in the tenderloin district, and i'm calling in support for more support for d.p.w. $10 million is a drop in the bucket when we're looking at communities that are

predominantly black, brown, and poor white poor, many of whom have disabilities. and higher risk of infection from other diseases, just not covid-19. they face these health hazards on a daily basis because they aren't rich communities. they use wheelchairs, and those chairs go back into their homes and leave issues, that we've been facing for decades. covid-19, we've been facing for, what? the last througee months. and to not justify spending $4 million to 10 dlsh million to relieve issues in those communities is a disservice to the community and to san francisco. i think, also, with more

oversight, we would be able to have better control over input and beautification projects over the next few decades. we would address inadequate services and open up to businesses like the gentleman just spoke to before that are part of our community, that they'd like to bring forth some solutions to the table and give them a seat at the table and decision making on the health of our communities. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is john mccormick. i am a san francisco resident for about five years now, and i

work inned tenderloin neighborhood. you know, i was really confused -- i was surprised to hear another proposal this morning that counters this proposal because i feel like this, you know, split up the department -- the d.p.w., it just makes a lot of sense. quine, you know, this is something that most major cities in the united states have. you know, splitting up the department is something that most major cities have, and i feel like we owe the residents of san francisco -- we owe the residents of san francisco a clean and safe place to live, and i don't understand why there's opposition to this. i just -- i feel like let's make this happen. h

how slie how, like, what's the best way to do this? i thank all the supervisors for this legislation, and i want it to move forward, and i hope it does. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> how you doing? my name is elgin, elgin rose. i work for co-tenderloin. i've been a resident of the tenderloin for 30 years, and i've never seen this neighborhood more worse with just filth and just the need for cleanliness, so i totally support matt haney and his office and this -- just do whatever we can to get this neighborhood clean because with cleanliness, it'll build each other up. the residents and the neighborhood deserve a clean passage to walk. and even the people that's homeless need a chance at

having a better life, so i appreciate efrk that's working on this measure. -- everybody that's working on this measure. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please? >> hi. this is gordon davis. pronouns, she, her. resident of the tenderloin. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> okay. i'm kind of upset with the conversation that's happening right now and the very bizarre 11th hour amendment that promote -- proposed by supervisor stefani. hard to sit through stuff like this for a long time. i live in the tenderloin. i literally have to dodge feces almost every day when i walk

out of my place, and it's a miracle that i've not contracted covid-19 from all the stuff on the streets. and also, look at everything. i don't want, like -- you know, i want main solutions. i want real-life solutions, getting homeless people off the streets and getting them into a situation where they can socially distance. we really need more public toilets, but -- and i know the commission won't exactly grant this, i know the commission won't exactly -- won't always mean, like, that all our problems are solved, but we need to make sure that we have good people on the commission, and that -- yeah, i'm just really upset at supervisor stefani. the only reason she's doing it is because she's carrying water for this corrupt-ass mayor. i'm just mad right now. supervisor haney is vetted in his community.

he's vetted with all sorts of stakeholders. it pisses me off, and if you can't support these structural reforms, you can basically go fuck yourselves. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> how you doing? my name is roy, too. i support matt haney and his plan to cleanup the streets of san francisco. i believe that he's doing it for the people that's living on the streets as well as the people that live in this community, so i'm for it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is bruce, and i own a

small business in district 10. my remaining concern is it feels like the value of the l.b.e. community in general to be a strong partner with city leaders in local hiring is nowhere to be seen for us. i'd just like to see if we can make a strong effort to righting that problem, we can go a long way towards achieving common goals and perspectives. we don't have much of a lobbying effort, but we hope that you'll see by involving the mayor's l.b.e. advisory committee as a one-stop shop, it may help improve that problem. again, thank you for giving us

a chance to be heard on this, and thank you for the action you've taken. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is ann, and i'm calling in support of the amendment. i've lived in san francisco for about 38 years, and i've been working in the tenderloin for ten years. i work with the s.r.o.s and with housed and unhoused citizens. i want to say that we've been in a humanitarian crisis and a public health crisis for many years in the tenderloin, and that the covid crisis has just worsened the situation and has served to peel back another layer of civic denial and neglect. in contrast, i drive in other neighborhoods, like dolores

park, looking at the city resources that are deployed regularly in the neighborhoods of millennials that have resources to take care of their sanitation needs. this sort of resource disparity is glaring and without the resources and the transparency that this amendment is asking for, theis situation will continue, and i urge everybody to support this amendment. it is overdue and well thought out, and i thank those of you who proposed it. that's it. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> hello. [inaudible] >> i've been in the tenderloin

for 23 years. [inaudible] >> this is a big house, and we're all residents in it together. [inaudible] >> it's time to change that kind of way because it's corrupt, and it's wrong. the money we've spent, let's make sure that the people that we put in place will be honorable to do their job correctly, and that everybody will be able to live in peace and harmony. this is our city. if it wasn't for us being here, it wouldn't be yours. so we're here, we're residents, we love this place, so let us

continue to love it and take care of it the way it should be taken care of, and then, we can bring in the tourists. so thank you, supervisor haney, for that, and have a good day. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please? >> hello. my name is miguel hernandez, and i'm an owner of a power wash, inc.a minority l.b.e.

[inaudible] >> that's all i would like to say, and i support supervisor haney. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> my name is caroline ward, and i'm a long time resident of the tenderloin, and i also want to see the tenderloin cleaned up and the homelessness issues addressed, but i do not support this issue because i do not see that it addresses any of those causes. it's going to cost millions of dollars that could be used to support these issues. millions of dollars that does not need to be spent by breaking up the department, d.p.w. the big issues need to be addressed, like homelessness and places to go to the bathroom, but this does not

address this. i see d.p.w. cleaning up all the time, but if you don't address the issues behind it, it's not going to get fixed, and that's where our money needs to go. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> hello. my name is renee colorado. i'm a small business operator. i'm calling in today in support of matt haney's charter amendment. first of all, i want to say that d.p.w., in recent -- you know, recent weeks, months, has been doing a vastly improved job. so has acting director. however, one person really can't prevent corruption or future corruption in a department this big. in talking to -- i'm also the executive director of the

tenderloin merchants association. although i realize this is a citywide amendment, the tenderloin, we face the brunt of the corruption from d.p.w., and really, the vast majority of small business owners that i've talked to, we're all in agreement of this. we're all in agreement of the oversight committee that's desperately needed. the department is too big. it needs to be broken-down, and i think if we do this, we'll immediately see the efficacy in the tenderloin. because of the corruption that's already been taken out, we're already seeing the improvement in the tenderloin already. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker,

please. >> hi. i'm jacques, and i think it's ridiculous in one of the richest cities in the world, that we can't figure out how to deal with trash, feces, and urine. in the bayview, the mission, and the tenderloin, we have a different way of living, and it's disgusting when it comes to our streets. san francisco is one of the largest cities without sanitation. i think it's common sense to create a new department of sanitation and streets. it's past time. it's a sensible solution. it keeps our streets clean with data driven solutions. right now, the current

department is full of corruption. we need new leadership and a new department now, and for that reason, i support supervisor haney's charter amendment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> i'm sorry. d.p.w. has not been doing a great job, as that person has said they was because for all these years, we have seen the way we have been treated down in the tenderloin continuously. how is that good? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please? >> operator: madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: thank you very

much. so we have two motions on the table. first -- >> chair ronen? >> chair ronen: yes. >> this is alex, the acting director of public works. i don't know if you would want me to respond to some of the comments that were made or not, just to clarify things? >> chair ronen: i think we're ready to just vote on this. if anyone has any questions, we'll ask them, but let's take the amendments first. first, we'll take the amendments from the author, supervisor haney. mr. clerk, can we have a roll call on those amendments? >> clerk: on the motion to -- on the amendments proposed by supervisor haney --

[roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes. >> chair ronen: okay. and then, we'll take the motion put forward by supervisor stefani. roll call, please. >> clerk: on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion fails by a vote of 1-2. >> chair ronen: okay. and then, i will make a motion to continue this item to the july 9 meeting of the rules committee? >> clerk: i thought this was going to july 16? >> chair ronen: why don't we continue that to the call of the chair, and then, we'll deal with that. i make a motion to continue this item to the call of the

chair. >> clerk: the motion to continue the item to the call of the chair as amended. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: motion passes to continue the matter to the call of the chair as amended. >> chair ronen: okay. thank you. and can we please go back to item number 1? >> clerk: yes. >> thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. oh, sorry. okay. so we don't -- you don't have to call it. i believe, if the city attorney is here still, ann pearson, we've got language for the amendment that i was suggesting. >> yes, we do. we've circulated it to members of the committee by e-mail, as well. there are amendments in two

different sections. the drst that i'm looking at, one amendment appears on pa-- that i'm looking at appears in page 6. the amendment on page 3 is just to clarify that the initial term is a two-year term and will not count against the person for purposes of the term limits. that appears on page 3, lines 9

through 12. >> chair ronen: okay. and that's agreeable to you, supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: yes, it is. thank you. >> chair ronen: okay. so if we could then -- we already took public comment. if we could call the roll on all the amendments both that i and supervisor mar introduced today? >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: okay. thank you. and mr. clerk, you can call item number 3. >> clerk: i believe you need

to continue this item until july 9. >> chair ronen: oh, yes. i'll make a motion to continue this item to the july 9 rules committee meeting. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you, mr. clerk, for keeping us on track. can you please read item number 3? >> clerk: yes. item number 3 is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to create the sheriff's deputy oversight board to advise and report findings and recommendations to the sheriff and board of supervisors regarding sheriff's department operations, to create the sheriff's department office of inspector general

under the direction of an inspector general appointed by the oversight board, to investigate complaints of noncriminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the sheriff's and in-custody deaths, develop policy recommendations for the sheriff's department, and report quarterly findings, results, and recommendations to the sheriff and the oversight board as an election to be held on november 3, 2020. >> chair ronen: thank you, yes. and supervisor -- our guinea pig is making its t.v. debut. if we could continue this item to the july 9 rules committee meeting. i will be making that motion, but before we do that, if we could take public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes. at this time, members of the public who wish to provide

public comment on this item should call 408-418-2388. meeti meeting i.d. is 1462655364. press pound, and pound again, then star and three to enter the queue. operator, are there any public

comments? >> operator: the public commenter has dropped off. >> chair ronen: then i make a motion to continue this matter to the july 9 meeting of the rule committee. >> clerk: on that motion to continue this item to the july 9 meeting of the rules committee -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. mr. clerk, are there any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. then the meeting is adjourned.

>> welcome everyone to the health commission meeting on tuesday july 7th. a special note our meetings will continue on the first and third tuesday of every month at 3:00 p.m. until september 1st, when we'll going back to a normal schedule as we have seen before and all meetings will be conducted virtually. it is also a great official and personal privilege of mine to introduce the newest member of the san francisco health commission susan christian. susan joins us for her first meeting today. she's served with the san francisco district attorney since 2005 and bridges a wealth of knowledge and experience to the commission with regards to bee hair youral health and equity. e