>> welcome to the july 13th, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. i'm chair of the committee. with me on the video conference is rule's committee vice chair captain stephanie and rules committee member supervisor gordon mar and we are joined by supervisor matt hainey. i would like to thank sf gov tv for staffing this meeting. are there any announcements? >> yes, thes. the legislative chamber and committee room are closed.

committee members will attend and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. president public comment will be available on the agenda and both channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streams across the stream. opportunities to speak are available via phone by calling (415)655-0001 and again that's 415655ooo1. the i.d. is 146-66-153 (146)661. you will be muted and in listening mode only. best practises are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your

television or radio. alternatively, you may submit either to myself at sggov.org or if you submit via email, it will be included as a part of the special file. that completes my comments p. a charter amendment to amend charter is and i to raise the department of sanitations and streets and to succeed the duties performed to create the sanitations and street's commission, to oversee the department of sanitation and streets and create a public work's commission to oversee the department of public works and require an annual performance audit and waste analysis and confirming under the california quality act and election to be

held on november 3, 2020. >> supervisosupervisor hainey, y comments? >> yes. i believe this is the fourth time in front of your committee. let me say thank you for hearing this item, for engaging thoughtfully with it and as you know, we've had a whole string set of amendments that have really, i think, addressed a lot of the questions and issues and concerns and improvements in strengthening it in various ways. the goal here is to create a structure that can better ensure both clean government and clean streets and this is over at this point nearly a year in the making with stakeholders, i employees at dpw and with our residents, with our cdd and with so many who know that the current structure is failing and

it's failing to ensure cleanliness and health when we need it more than ever. >> matt, i think you are on mute. sorry. and during this pandemic, we really more than ever need to make sure we have cleanliness and health on our streets and sidewalks. this is a structure more focused, with the expertise to get the job done and provide a structure that provide for better transparency over some of the most important work that is happening in our city. and so, just to reiterate is couple of things --

>> we can't hear you again. your sound went off, supervisor hainey. >> i'm not sure what's going on here. i'll try to wrap up quickly. and so we took a couple of amendments that really, i think, addressed some of the issues around costs that have come up again and again and you'll see that there's a new controller's letter that brings down the estimated costs to 2.5 million at the low end, up to 6, which is a significant reduction from the initial estimates. and i believe we can reduce it hurt than that based on the decisions that the board makes when the departments create it. we put in there the board will adopt an ordinance that can lead to shared administrative functions between current dpw and the new department as well as the city administrator's

office. there is no cost associated with this. we know we will have challenges around our budget and this is a miniscule cost, two years from now, for a much better structure and tens of millions of dollars were contracted out alone by the former director who's been charged with the u.s. attorney, tremendous waste in efficiencies that this new structure will address. we are also requiring the new commission and the controller to do a regular analysis to identify opportunities to further reduce costs and reduce inefficiency says and so this is a much better structure. it's more started, more accountable, providing greater oversight. and also, there's one more amendment that we took, you know, in the case that in july of 2022, that the board decides

that we're still in too to dire odire ofa fiscal situation, to t even further out. and so that allows us flexibility in terms of how thi- >> we can't hear you again. >> and we were able to bring on a final cosponsor and so there are six of us supporting this and we want to just ask in this rule's committee put this forward to the full board to send this forward to the ballot so that voters can have their say and hundreds who emailed saying they support and this i believe the voters will support in november and i hope we can put this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation for a vote to

send it to the ballot and thank you for your time and input. >> colleagues, any remarks? >> any member have two minutes to speak. >> members should call (415)655-0001. and the meeting i.d. 416-65309 and press pound and pound again and if you have not done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. assistant prompt will indicate you've raised your hand. please waitl wait until you're d and you can begin. is there any public comment? >> operator: madam chair, there are no speakers in the queue.

>> then we will close public comment. supervisor stephanie. >> thank you, chair ronen and thank you supervisor hainey, for being here at committee here today. while i appreciate the discussion we had in committee last week and the arguments and amendments the sponsor has made and your clear commitment to this issue, i feel i'm in a position where i cannot support the item and i do believe that transparency, more accountability and a change to the culture at the top of public works is necessary. we definitely agree on that. and i know that director breed has made some of the changes and has really begun to do that. the controller recently recommended additional changes i would like to see and i know you all would, as well. i do agree, as i said last week, a public work's commission would be a positive change to the structure of our deposit and to.

that's why i proposed the public work's structure be remained. retained. i believe the condition of san francisco streets is unacceptable and we all agree on that. and that we need more urgency around this issue. in 2018, when i became supervisor, i asked the budget and legislative analyst to compare our street-cleaning to those in other comparable cities. they surveyed 11 cities, including baltimore, chicago, long beach, los angelos, portland, act hav sacramento ann diegsandiego and we spent more n four times as much on street cleaning per capita than the cities and seven times the amount of street-cleaning positions than those cities. we had more service requests than those cities and provided more services, more frequently

than those cities. but despite having more requests for service, we did not have a lower response time than those cities. so, obviously, there are areas where we could improve and, of course, we can always improve and we absolutely should. but for more, a second department and second commission, i don't believe will make our streets any cleaner. and that's where we differ. we don't differ in the reality of what we're all seeing on our streets. i understand the most recent changes you have made, supervisor hainey, but for me, i have to stick to how i see things, that we are facing that $2 billion budget shortfall over the next two years and we don't know when the recession will end. so when we're talking about cleaning up san francisco, which, again, has been a priority of mine one find it hard to believe that what we need most is more managers or

it, hr or finance professionals and so for me, investing in your bureaucracy will not be the best use of our resources for the foreseeable future and even though the costs have been brought down, there's still costs there and we don't have the foresight to understand when the pandemic will end. i'm not able to vote for it today. i admire your passion. i won't be able to vote for it today, but thank you for your hard work in calling attention to a very important issue. >> thank you. supervisor hainey, did you want to say anything? >> can you hear me me ok now? >> yes. >> while i appreciate those comments, supervisor stephanie, and thank you for your commitment on this issue, as well, and whatever happens, we'll work together to improve the results and the outcomes.

i think the story you shared there, i think that's exactly why we put this forward. i do not believe that continuing to spend more and more in the structure that we have is going to get the outcome and results we have. we have to be more focused intentionally, the strategy based on services, we need oversight and each if we spend tens of millions of more under dpw, i don't believe the job will get done and that's exactly what is motivating a change in the structure, more oversight and focus which i think can get it done and so, you know, respectfully, we can disagree on how to get it done.

>> we need in so badly in district 9 that as i always say, the definition of the sanity is doing the exact thing and expecting different results.

the people of san francisco will have the ultimate say and so with that, i would like to make a medication to move this to the full board as a committee report. if we can take a role call vote. >> on the motion, i assume to recommend this as a committee report. >> yes. on the motio motion for july 14. supervisor stephanie. >> no. (role call). >> the motion passes with supervisor stephanie dissenting in committee. >> thank you. can you please read item number 2. >> yes. item two is a charter amendment to amend the charter en to set

advocates public duties and to review the administration of the city programs and services including programs for transmitting information to the public and department, customer service plan and to receive, investigate in an attempt to resolve complaints resolving city services and programs authorizing the public advocate to receive and investigate specific complaints and provide the public advocates, elections and salary at an election on november 3, 2020. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, so much, chair ronen and supervisor stephanie, for allowing us to be here.

i think we're aware that the ongoing investigation by the u.s. attorney and fbi into wide-spread corruption in city government continues and the scope of investigation continues to widen and now, in addition to our departments of public works and building inspection as well as the mayor's office of neighborhood services, the federal investigation is now looking at the public utility's commission and so, again, the need for the public advocates, the office of the public advocate is clear, san francisco needs a public advocate and people in san francisco deserve a public advocate. we need structural eform to address the culture of casual corruption and make our city government more accountable, and we need to be proactive and we need a long-term solution for this long-term problem and thank you for your consideration and

so, i urge us to move this forward to the board and move it forward to the voters to decide on that in november. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor stephanie, do you comments now? >> again, i'll wait until after public comment. >> perfect. can we please open this up for public comment. each speaker will have two minutes. >> members who wish to provide public comment should ca (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is (146)661-5309 and then press pound and pound again and if you haven't done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and please wail until the system waits you have been un-muted.

are there any members the public on the line? >> operator: yes, there are two callers waiting to speak and i'll un-mute the system. >> question: i reget i didn't have an opportunity to see what revisions have been made. so, you know, maybe this is somewhat repetitious. my concerns are the less that should be there. the assignments can be made after this and then there are regulations and in this case, there could be mou's.

even if later, the assignments are made, you know, internally in the course of implementation. the access to records absolutely, you have to follow the evidence where it leads. and it's -- there are some records that should be consulted, maybe mental health records. (lost member audio connection).

>> the 11 members of the board of supervisors and our 44 staff members and we voted to increase the subpoena power in the government on an oversight committee, the controller, city attorney, ethic's commission and more already execute these essential functions of government. so for me, i struggle to understand how creating another elected office to introduce legislation, hold hearings and

issue subpoenas would be anything anything but legislated for those of the offices i have mentioned. people in san francisco already elect dozens of elected officials and safeguarding public funds and trust should be our top priorities. in all my year working for the city, i have never heard the answer to sanfrancisco's problems is more politicians. during what could bthe last thin francisco should have to pay for is another platform. while i increase transparency and integrity in our local government, this is something i admire, supervisor mar, for you bringing this forward were, but this measure will not accomplish those goals. soy have faith in our controller, our city controller and our own oversight, and i

will be voting against this measure today, if you. >> supervisor mar, did you want to respond in any way? >> yes, thank you, chair. and i would like to respond. i would say that, you know, the need, again, the breadth and scope of corruption in our city government, right now they're looking at document fraud and taxpayer money for city departments, including the department heads of those departments, as well as a number

of appointed commissioners and contractors and city contractors and even permanent expediters and it is shared that our existing systems of investigating and not working. it will be between 725,000 and 925,000 a year. this is not a defending measure and cost-saving measure because

corruption costs taxpayer money. i would look at putting this forward in november. >> thank you, supervisor m l.a. ar. you would be a consistent leader on good government and ensuring that our ethics and integrity in the city are strong and forthright and that we really

stand up as an example. of how to be stewards of taxpayer dollars.

the ethic's commission are incredibly underfunded and have a responsibility to educate and

assist candidates to run for office and follow the rules. we do not have a single person whose full responsibility, focus and attention is on ensuring that there's no corruption in the city and no fraud and waste. and if the fbi coming in and announcing a new investigation and a new indictment every couple of months or so isn't enough to tell you that something has to change in the city and county of san francisco so that we can police ourselves and so the public feels comfortable that it's not -- you know, it's not necessary for the fbi to come into our city, to root out all of this corruption. it gets more and more shocking as the days go on and the fbi has made it clear that they have

not even begun their finish. and i don't know what that means and that's a problem, the fact that we don't know what that means and we are leaders in the city. it's because we don't have someone whose full-time responsibility it is to investigate and root out this corruption. people in san francisco deserve no less and i have a strong feeling, supervisor mar, when the voters get to decide this time around given that the situation we're currently facing, that they will be enthusiastically voting for this. i, too, am looking forward on being the campaign trail with this legislation and, again, supervisor mar, thank you for being such a leader in this area. and with that, would you like to do the honors or shall i? >> yeah, i would be happy to do it. i would make a motion that we move this forward to the full board with positive recommendation as the committee report. >> ok, cap we hav can we have al

vote in. >> on the motion to recommend this as a committee vote to the july 14th, board of supervisor's meeting -- (role call) the motion passes with supervisor selfny dissenting in committee. >> thank you, so much, can you please read item number 3. >> item number 3 is a hearing to consider the proposed ordinance by the mayor for the november 3, 2020 elections entitled amendment to the planning code and business and tax regulation code to adopt to implement the save our small business initiative to simplify greater flexibility for certain kinds of businesses. now. >> and we are joined by sophia from the mayor office and i wanted to check to see if there

were any comments. looks like not. good morning, miss kitler. >> good morning to all. thank you so much for having me this morning and i am joined by aaron star, dan snyder and diego sanchez from the planning department and lauren from oewd as they are a little bit more in the details on questions you may have. but i have a brief presentation that i will share with you in the meantime. , assuming that i can -- oh, i don't have the ability to share. i will speak through it and send it to you if that is preferable. >> i don't know, maybe if the clerk could help you share? >> yes. is there a way to give miss kitler the ability to share? >> i apologize for this.

>> we will check on that ability. if you would like to forward your presentation to us, we can share it with you. >> i apologize for the inconvenience. >> no problem. >> just wait for one minute while she sends the presentation to the clerk so we can share it with the public. >> miss kitler, if you don't mind sharing your documentation again, i believe we have changed your setting where you'll be able to do that. >> yes. it looks like i can do that and so i will do that now.

>> we are in a covid moment seeing a lot of potential closures and i think people expect a third of businesses that have shut down during shelter-in-place to not reopen and so this is a measure that we hope we've designed to get people in san francisco back to work quickly and streamline a lot of the process that might stand in the way of that. and we propose doing that by addressing two small business challenges. the first is bureaucratic processing, kind of looking at

what has held up our slow permitting review times that have kind of indicated that our small businesses have -- they sign a lease and pay rent for months before they can even start earning money as they go through the fire department and the department of building inspection and planning commission and so, this is in efforts to streamline that and address them of that. and on the other end, we've seen that we have a lot of changes in how our businesses can operate. we have a number of businesses like night life and entertainment that will not be reopening for the foreseeable future. our existing restaurants that are considered essential businesses are having to move outside and take up new spaces, work at 50% capacity and that is really a significant burden on our small businesses and so, again, we are trying to address some of the zoning changes to make it a little bit easier to

kind of help businesses flow and find new revenue streams to kind of float through the next two to three years as we learn to deal with covid. the first on the streamlining processing item, there are a few things that we are trying to accomplish and first, this will require a 30-day streamlined review process for any principally permitted use and if you have a conditional use and get some of those changes that would not be affected by this, but if you are principally permitted use, we would guarantee you would get a hearing and get all of your modifications done in 30 days. and we do that by enabling all of the th department departmento review at the same time.

right before opening, a business learns that they were slotted into the wrong category or noticed they sent an incorrect notification, so the city will take responsibility and we will prioritize any remedy permits and waive additional fees. and then, finally, on neighborhood modification, this would eliminate 311 notifications for lcu's and lccu's. i think somebody may not be on mute. >> on neighborhood commercial stricts, i removes a number of restrictions on uses in the nc district and social activities would be permitted and no retail services would be generally principalliy permitted and general entertainment, movie

theaters, restaurants, those would be liberalized. and the way we think about it, whatever level you are currently at has moved up one level. and really, the idea behind this is to make sure that we have a lot of flexibility, kind of respecting the existing structure that has been in place through a long history of the community process and within that framework, trying to get as many of our vacant commercial storefronts filled as quickly as possible, to get everybody back to work in a safe manner. and retail workspace, so this would allow retail workplace or co-working spacing in eating and drinking uses. we allow this for as an accessory use, for day-time dinner only restaurants. so if you have a restaurant open only at dinner and is not open for lunch, you would be allowed to allow coworkers spaces

between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. and not outside of those hours but an additional revenue stream. the other way to go about this as a principal use to have coworking space in the back and cafe at the front. the reason we think this is important is that, again, as people have gotten used to sheltering in place and getting everything delivered to their house, people are feeling social isolation and we are hoping this will move people out of their homes, trying to seek another place to work. this will get people walking by their neighborhood commercial retail and they might buy a toy or stop in at the book shop and this will activate corridors more, particularly in places we're trying to support restaurants, but the restaurants might not be opened during the day and they're having such scaled-back use at night with the restrictions on social distancing.

temporary uses, the first bars and entertainment venues, it will be a long time before those come back in their truest self. this would allow the bars and entertainment to go through a temporary change of use for up to six years without abandoning that use. so that, if you wanted to permanent go through a change of-use process and it could reconvert or retail shop without abandoning your use, so all of the hundreds of thousands in getting the entertainment venue up to code is not lost during this period where they are not able to operate. and then, also, looking at pop-up retail, we're kind of building on the pop-up retail legislation that you all passed, allowing 60-day pop-up and commercial storefronts and that's a quick way to help us

generate more foot traffic and more revenue for our businesses along our commercial corridors. other uses, this would eliminate restricts for nc1 parcels, and based on proximity and nc districts some this is looking at buffers and as i understand it, and making sure that each area is kind of zoned as the people who went through those community processes intended and it's important to note here that there are a few areas in the city that have very recently gone through an ec tensive community process to rezone those parcels and so those would not be touched by this. and laurel, please jump in if i have incorrectly identified anything. and then, there's also eliminating the cu requirements for outdoor activity areas in nc districts and that does not

apply to bars, but if you are trying to expand into your outdoor activities to create a little bit more space for yourself as a cafe, as a restaurant, this would allow you to do that, given the social distancing requirements that are needed. and a couple other things that changes a few definitions and one is the definition of social districts so that -- we found a lot of the nonprofits are getting pushed out to cheaper areas as office space becomes more expensive if you do need an office component and this is to keep our nonprofits in the city and then have clarifications around bonafide eating places, which i will defer to, dan, and laurel or aaron star, but that is to make that a little bit less confusing so they understand when and now that hot

applies to their business. if there is something they want to make easier for businesses through that community process, they are able to do that. and that is all. and i'm happy to take any questions and defer any of them to my colleagues. sorry for running through that quickly.

>> why are you were co going to this to where it may or may not passes and go to the board of supervisors? >> absolutely. i think that's a hardwood good n and there are a number that are pending or in legislation that has been introduced by the supervisors and they had that taken out in pieces. and i think that, you know, the hope is that we can move quickly and with a certain amount of you're urgency. and i think the idea is really to just move with a sense of

urgency given the particular moment we're in and i think there's a lot of bandwidth issues and -- it's to work through that sense of urgency with a lot of the things that through legislation that has been removed, frankly. >> i still don't understand, because, really, the vast majority of the componente compi love but if we move to those now through the board of supervisors as an emergency ordinance, those could be in effect within 30 days and then we can make them permanent after those 30 days. if we go to the ballot, we have to wait until november and then they won't be -- the results won't be certified and won't go in effect until january.

people need these changes now and i don't have a content concern so much about this, as much as let do it and let's go it now. why are we waiting? >> the temporary measure, i think we would be happy to work with you and all of the supervisors on it. and i think we felt like on a number of these issues, time was of the essence but i hear you on the emergency piece. >> ok. still don't understand why it needs to go to ballot, but i will move on. any other questions from supervisors mar or stephanie. >> thank you, chair. i do have some questions and first, i just wanted to thank miss kibler, and thank you to the mayor's office for all of

your work. i certainly appreciate the intent of this and support the goals of streamlining, permitting or small businesses and allowing for more flexibility of use, but i do agree with supervisor ronen about the process and you see it makes a lot more sense to pr tro move this forward as legislation, particularly as an emergency ordinance to get it in place as soon as possible. and i also had a question -- an additional around the process and who was consulted in crafting this. it appears the office wasn't

consulted and we have the needs of the small businesses within our districts and they can vary widely, right, and even within my district, the needs of merchants on irving and inner and outer are quite different. but also, i was just curious what stakeholders provided input and who the mayor's office worked with on this. >> i must say i was not involved in that process, but to my understanding, we worked with members of the small business commission a number of business owners around the city and a few supervisor's offices in advance of introduction and i think your point is well-taken on this localization specificity on how each neighborhood commercial

corridor is different and how it has different needs and i think we were trying t trying to stice zoning -- trying to keep within the zoning and keep thinking about how to streamline rather than taking something and say, you know, you have historically hidden bashe bars. we're trying to figure out what to do in a short-term, stop-gap measure to bring more foot traffic and if we're lucky, we won't have retail spaces vacant and we'll come out of this quickly and won't have that. laurel, do you want to speak to to that? >> there was the economic recovery task force and many of these ideas were in the solicitations from the public from the chamber of commerce, from other recovery task force members and we consulted that as

we drop o drafted this measure. >> many require departments to operate totally differently than they do now, which is a good thing and they would need to coordinate their permit and inspections with each other, which we've said for a long time and i'm wondering if you have any sense of what the process to guide departments through this major change in the way they operate would be. >> laurel, can you speak to that? i can take a crack at it, as

well, but you might be better at it. >> yes, i think that we have a lot of the foundations in place for this, with the opening of the permit center and the technology we're adopting. in addition, we saw the departments do this with the streamline review of adu's and i'm hopeful that this will be an opportunity to embrace and move forward with things they do in the past and that they will be able to do through this measure. >> thank you. are you done, supervisor stephanie? >> yes. >> i just had a couple of additional or detailed questions. and i think catherine went into this more, but if you could explain how this is different at all from what is currently underway at the permit center. isn't it the same goal? >> i think it is certainly the

same goal. i think that we are hoping with this comes a measure of accountability and the permit center and what they've been doing there is kind of in the spirit of bringing everyone together in one house and getting everyone in the same room but guaranteeing, you know, what, i think, catherine and stephanie has worked on calling a bill of rights. not saying we're intending to get this done, but this is a commitment from the city so we are going to get your business as it is principally permitted through that process rather than kind of saying, you know, well, we will try to do that to the best of our ability. this is putting the onus much more on us and less on the business. >> which i understand and i agree that all needs to happen. i guess i just don't understand what the purpose of codifying this if there's no consequences for running over the 30-day deadline. i mean, if you had built in some sort of consequences, then i

could understand where that's stronger than what we're doing. but it's essentially -- there are no consequences if we miss the 30-day deadline and it's exactly what we're doing now. >> laurel, can you speak to that? >> i don't know if the permit center has ever experienced -- i don't believe that we've set a road mark and i'm sorry i haven't worked on the permit center directly but i don't think we want everything processed in 30 days. i think this is an establishment in a new guideline that the voters want to ask the city to abide by if they were to follow this measure, pass this measure. >> supervisor ronen, may i raise a question? my understanding in terms of the consequences, the departments would are to pay for their mistake. the onus would not be on the

small business any more, that if the departments didn't follow the guidelines in terms of working together, that it would be on the departments to pay for that mistake and the small business would not be fined. that's my understanding and reading of it and i don't know if anyone wants to speak to that, but that is what i understood, which i thought was good. if the departments won't work together, and they mess up in a way that normally we would make our small businesses may, no longer will our small businesses have to pay. in fact, the department will have to eat that cost. >> is that in the ordinance itself? i missed that if it was. >> certainly for when the departments make a mistake and that has to do with if you were flagged for the wrong notification variety and, you know, directed to the wrong departments. i would have to get back to you

on whether or not that is also in there, if we do not meet our mandated deadlines. and i apologize i don't have that at my fingers. >> again, sadly, we've missed the deadline to make any amendments to this. and i guess that's -- i think we're all wanting to make these changes. i think the consequence that supervisor stephanie just pointed to, oh, my gosh, that should have been the case ages ago. it's just that we want to make this as strong and meaningful as possible and it just doesn't feel very strong to me if we're creating a 30-day deadline, if there's not a benefit to the business if we break it, because we could break it at any time and that is kind of what happened. and so, again, i wish we were

doing this through ordinance, where we could make amendments to make it stronger and where we were working on this with you together to bring in the perspective from our different districts. while i'm 100% with you on the intentions of this, we need this so badly, we needed it yesterday. why don't we, instead of doing this on the ballot, do this together at the board now and make it as strong as possible? and again, i still have a bunch of questions, because we never got a chance to talk to you about this before the hearing. >> supervisor, i thought of two more things to address your question, if that would be helpful. >> sure. >> one thing, currently i don't think even with our current plan with the permit center, many businesses would not get through in 30 days because of the notification process. so by removing this, we are getting closer to the center

process. notifications take 60 to 90 days and even with concurrent review, they couldn't meet that because of notification. and additionally, we built into the legislation the ability to amend and make it more permissible. i do think you could also add through the normal legislative process consequences for not meeting the 30-day mark and i don't think you're precluded from that in how we wrote this legislation. >> that's great. again, let just do it at the board. but moving on to the bonafide eating place, can you explain why we are creating a new definition of bonafide eating place? if it's to be an expanded definition. >> yes. so currently, the bonafide

eating place definition has been challenging to enforce and hard for businesses to clearly even -- even when businesses want to show compliance, it's been very challenging. we researched what a number of other cities are doing and we found models in places like washington, d.c. that matched what we did. we increased the number, the dollar amount by quite a lot from d.c.'s model has, based on studies, what the revenue of local eating establishments are and we took the lowest 25% and we did a whole thing to calculate it and we gave the zoning administrator the ability to adjust it as needed. the point is to ep sur ensure it a bar masquerading as a restaurant and they're legitimately serving food and we think this allows an easier way for businesses to combine still

clearly having food as a major focus of their revenue model. >> where did you get that figure? >> it was a calculation from our restaurant study, we took the model from washington, d.c. and then we redid it through a local study of revenue of restaurants and took the 25% percentile and i can send you calculations if that would be helpful. >> where you say the zoning administrator can lower the figure at any time, is that decision bound by any oversight by the planning commission or board of supervisors?

>> we added, i believe -- i'm searching the legislation now, a requirement that he demonstrated how he calculates that, to provide that extra bit of oversight and if i can find it, that would be helpful. the planning department, do you want to jump in as i madly control s this legislation? >> i'm also looking for it, but it is in the ordinance, where it allows -- the zoning administrator has to demonstrate why he's changing it. and so i just can't find that specific language. >> i just found it on page 8, and the zoning administrator may adjust it provided that such is

supported by specific financial and economic criteria, including but not limited to the review of the restaurant market, profits and losses and recognising the differences in sizes and types of establishments. we added that language to be clear, that the zoning administrator would need to demonstrate the reasoning behind any adjustment to that figure. and provide accountability. >> ok, i just imagine that it will apply to restaurants very differently depending on the price point for the food that they serve, but ok, i can move on for that. and so, i wanted to talk, moving on to the retail workspace and i definitely understand the intentions behind the section and appreciate those circumstances a lot. it does provide me a little bit of worry, primarily because of

how hard certain neighborhoods neighborhoods -- like chinatown and the mission district have worked against the office space creeping into those neighborhoods. in fact, i have legislation pending right now to no longer allow office use in the umu zoning, in the mission district. and so, i just am a little worried about this piece of it. i mean, are we basically with these amendments allowing -- we work as a principally permitted use restaurants along all of our commercial corridors throughout the city? >> i think this is more nuanced than that, in that it requires that the spaces be made

available on a daily or hourly basis. we work where you are a reserved desk everyday in perpetuity. and additionally, it requires that it is an accessory -- it is associated with a real food and bev business. we added extra things like you can only operate on the days the business is operating.

one restaurant that was using it, the woman said it was helpful when she was alone in restaurant during the day for dinner service to have the additional activity, someone watching the door, making her feel safer to operate for business in san francisco. i think there are a lot of benefits. i hear your concern but we were thoughtful in building the controls to make sure it is, in fact, tied to a legitimate food and beverage operation to help address some of the concerns. >> i rcmp wan really want to hep restaurants meet their rent burden when they're upgrading, if they're lucky at quarter capacity. and so i'm interested in this and i'm wondering if there is -- especially for neighborhoods hard hit by rising rents and the

displacement of local family, you know, end nick end ethnic, n businesses and if we could be more nuanced. i can't say enough that i really love this legislation and i just wish we could do it at the board instead because i think we're, like, 95% there. there are places where there are more nuanced mitigation for particular neighborhoods with high levels of displacement. and, you know, if you could take that back to the mayor, i would appreciate that. we want to get this up and running asap. we need it desperately and i so

appreciate the work you've done and i think it's 95% there. i'm just looking at my notes on the legislation. if you could talk around the meaning of section 205.6, interim uses with bars and

entertainment. and so, we're basically saying that for four to six years, there can be an interim use but not a permanent change to the underlining zoning. and can you explain who this is designed to serve and how it would work? >> you want me to do that? >> i can take a stab at it and i think the idea behind that was there are a number of businesses like -- i think slims is a good example, the philmore, businesses where they have a huge amount of rent and we don't want that business to go away for ever and it won't be able to open in its typical business model for the foreseeable future. certainly, if they wanted to permanently change that and no longer be the philmore and

change that, they would have to go through the normal change-of-use process and that would abandon the entertainment use, as i understand it. this would allow them in the interim period, assuming they are trying to work back towards eventually getting back to your kind of slim's model, but in the meantime, you could operate as a restaurant or a retail shop without becausing that use and so that you wouldn't have to go back and refile all of those same permits and fees once it is reopen. is that accurate? >> that is accurate, thanks. >> i might have a few more questions to ask after we open this up for public comment, but i will take a break and hear from the public and hear a few more questions after hearing

public comment. mr. clerk, can you please open up this for public comment and every member will have two minutes to speak. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is (146)661-5309 and press pound and pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak and the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand and please wait until the system indicates you have been un-muted and you may begin your comment. any speakers online? >> yes, there are currently ten callers in the queue.

>> i'm the president of the entertainment commission speaking on my own today and i've been meeting with supervisors and small business owners for the last two years and finding out what the problem was and i came up with a list of items that could help and i met with many of the supervisors. i met with the mayor's office and then the coronavirus struck and the small business was failing and coronavirus was pushing that to an extinction event. this ballot measure took a lot of input that i uncovered on my own and incorporated in there. i'm thrilled about it and in support of it and i want to go on the record for that. i want to address the ballot question and supervisor ronen and i have, we have this amazing ripe, at leasrelationship, at l,

she's all-in on small business and why a measure is better for these specific items and very specifically, it's that when you're dealing with the planning code, from what i've seen and righting fundamental wrongs, the board of supervisors starts with good intentions and then by the end of the process, they get watered down because there's so much input and it doesn't address the issue. the small business streamlining legislation last year was a good example of that and so i do believe the ballot measure is the way to go and i think we let the voters speak and support this and then it's codified forever. i will say this, this item only has a small portion of the fundamental fixes that we need for small business. it's fantastic. i love it but any supervisor's office, supervisor mar, stephanie and ronen, i have been

in communication with your offices and we have a hundred more fixes and if we don't have emergency in that legislation -- >> thank you, speaker time has elapsed. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker: hi there, supervisors. can you hear me. >> we can hear you. >> speaker: i'm the small business manager for the san francisco chamber of congress. we represent all of san francisco businesses, but our membership is made up of 80% small businesses and i am so encouraged by this measure proposed by mayor london procee. as someone who works closely with small businesses as they navigate challenges and the intricacies, i understand this was a long-time coming. you are right, we needed this legislation yesterday and it's

not come forth. this is a set of tools that are addressing some of the striking challenges to starting and operating a small business. too long have small businesses beared the burden of not understanding how to pay rent before they open up their doors or not moving to the next-door unit because of some piecemeal zoning and we all know this and we have to take this opportunity and give voters the opportunity to do everything that we can to support the survival of our current small businesses and to restart the economy to restart this crisis hopefully in the near future. this addresses many issues that have been heard from the public on and on throughout the years and supervisors mar and ronen, sponsored last year the state of the restaurant industry hearing, which we heard all of the points of this ballot measure come up

time and time again and that's been ten months and we haven't seen the change we needed and this is an excellent start and i totally believe the board of supervisors should take this legislation and build on it and address the hundreds of problems that have been outlined that we have to move forward. but we must support a ballot measure taking a great step in the right direction of supporting small businesses and then realize that we can build off of that to make san francisco the best place in the world to be a small business. >> thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> speaker: i'm peter and i live in district 5. i support chair ronen. don't wait for the ballot box, just don't it. thank you. >> can i have the next speaker, please.

>> hello. i'm a constituent of district 8 and i'm also calling because i support supervisor ronen's measure under the ordinance. already we have propositions on the ballot and there might be up to 20 local measures on the ballot and that's not even counting canada from the ballot. they expect voters to understand such a complicated measure. there were apps through the supply chain. they don't understand the true sense of it and it's just ridiculous. to the previous commenters for the voters to have their say, voters can only say yes or no. the voters won't add substantial input. so just pass it and be done. you don't need to put everything to the voters unless it's necessary. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> speaker: i'm calling in strong support of the ballot measure. i'm looking out my window at what used to be a boutique and this ballot measure will make it easier for someone to fill that space instead of having to wait six to eight months for a change-of-use permit and i know this should have been done yesterday and the fact that it wasn't, indicates why we need it on the ballot. >> can we have the next speaker? >> can you hear me? >> we can. please proceed. >> thank you. i'm teddy kramer, i'm a small business owner in district 3 and i want to comment specifically related to the retail workspace

component of this ballot measure. first and foremost, if we went pre- covid in san francisco, we need to be aware that every single coffee shop had become a workspace and that is the reality of the world we live in. we live in a world where now 150 million americans are working remotely across this country. and our retail spaces have been turned into retail workspace and we are all operating and able to work from wherever we want. the retail workspace component of this is crucial and i don't -- and actually, as one of the first 100 employees, i don't think it's fair we demonize the idea of work-on-demand saying everything is we-work and the negative pret that' press affecf the workspace. supervisor ronen, if you look in your own community, the gem of your community is a workspace

during the day and may be an event place at night, but it fills everyday with people in the community who need somewhere to work and congregate. my one objection to this ballot measure related to retail workspace is that a business model is forced on the businesses that want to take advantage of retail work space. you are forcing food and beverage on to these business interestbusinessesand that shou. this is publically accessible space, and that is something we need to provide to the community. we should not have a we-work model and it should not be a monthly requirement and we should not turn people away from the street. so having an hourly consumption, that is what should be required. we need to serve the needs of the new economy, the economy of 2020. >> thank you, speaker time has elapsed.

next speaker, please. >> firstly, i want to say that i am absolutely in support of this measure. secondly, i an want to say the modifications to it, meaning that we should absolutely be doing this on an emergency basis where the supervisors can have more input, seeing a requirement in this moment. and while we desperately needed these changes. in the normal course of business, it would make sense to have this conversation in public. in this moment, we're faced with an emergency situation and that emergency situation is a large portion of our retail spaces are gone and we need to reallocate them and make that the easier. postponing this conversation for

voter input and solidifying this so concretely seems a mistake when there are so many changes that need to be done and it needs to be done in such a timely manner that it seems a missetting of expectations to say that this set of changes is only going to be done at the earliyest in january of 2021. that seems utterly unacceptable and i support mr. ronen's proposal to do this on an emergency basis and to continue to modify as our community faces this crisis. so four that proposal, mr. ronen, and thank you london breed for this necessary overall proposal in change to the rules. san francisco is far too harsh on small businesses attempting to succeed and we need to make those opportunities be more apparent and more accessible,

not more difficult, so as we see these on-roads and attempts for new taxes, this is a wonderful moment of relief in some of the central regulations that prevent small business success in our city. >> thank you. speaker time has elapsed. thank you. >> cap we have the next speaker. >> speaker: good morning. i'm a resident of district 2 and i live near poke street and, you h knowthisis a great business cr with lots of vacancies and we've heard time and time again from business owners themselves and small business advocates that it's hard to open a business and change a business and one thing that we saw a few weeks ago at the planning commission, where a new spot would open up in the mission on 20th street and, actually, it's a dessert shop is

garden creamery filed the dr for closure. and that dr was utley vote ultid down 7-0, for the shop to do business for three or four months. so this legislation would stop frivolous dr's and abuses of the modification and so, i am strongly in support of the measure. if the supervisors want legislation, not being about this measure, precluding them from doing it, so that is an option, i believe, that the supervisors are able to do.

>> speaker: i wanted to speak about this legislation and bring some context to the comments that supervisor ronen made earlier which brings me to the history of chinatown and the chinatown plan. the chinatown plan has long been fighting the association and organizations and business models based on coworkers that have really hindered the ability of our small business in chinatown to thrive and we are concerned about kind of the creep-in and how this legislation may affect this framework. and we come with 30 years of advocacy in passing the chinatown plan and in advocating for the chinatown plan to maintain it's community roots and community strength and so,

we would really like to see this ballot measure considered through the legislative process so that we can have the ability as best as we can to analyze its impact on the chinatown plan, understanding that it doesn't change some of the zoning cables for the plan, but it does change some definitions at the city-wide level that have an impact on our plan. and that is my comment. thank you. >> thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> speaker: i'm emily abraham and i am representing the san francisco chamber of conference and as the previous speaker mentioned, 80% of small businesses and on behalf of these businesses, the small

businesses, we offer our strong support of this ballot measure. and before covid-19, it was a challenging time to open and operate a small business in san francisco. and this ballot measure will do something real to make a difference for small businesses who are struggling right now. and for the recovery of our local economy. two of the greatest challenges we've heard in operating in san francisco is around permitting and the process for getting or making changes and many of the changes are essential to addressing some of the changes in the economy and the demands within san francisco and finding the locations that can accommodate these business models is a major struggle. this will streamline the permitting and the section process for new businesses and allow reasonable zoning and all of the city's neighborhood and transit zoning districts. that's what we need to ensure san francisco remains the vibrant and diverse environment that we all love. thank you all for your time.

thank you. >> thank you. can we hear from the next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning, supervisors. i'm the director of public policy at the restaurant association. i'm calling in today on behalf of our incredible restaurant industry in san francisco and we're excited to support this measure. thank you for hearing this as a time when the city needs all of the support they can get. we need to fix outdated zoning rules and streamline the process. this provides flexibility for restaurants. restaurants, more than ever, need to rethink the business models and we are grateful to the mayor's office for draw attentiodrawingattention to thes community. thank you. >> thank you. i would just like to note for members on the line that if you

have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue to speak and for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been un-muted. can we have the next caller, please. i'm in district 5. i just wanted to say that my partner and i both very much support this legislation. if thewe're happythis has for ts

felt threatened and i'm happy to see this work talked about and supported and we hope that these changes are made. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> speaker: good morning, supervisors. i'm robert fruckman. i live in district 5 and i wanted to point out that the board of supervisor's -- i agree with what the supervisors are saying about how you could have done something, but you have

chosen not to until this very item came up. i want to point out that last year, the budget wrote a report for supervisor mamdleman with nine different policy options to make it easier for new businesses to open and the supervisors did not act on that report. additionally, the supervisor of district 5 last year attempted to streamline small business permits and that was whittled down after lobbying more neighborhood groups and the planning commission and lastly, supervisor peskin introduced a bill which is under the 30-day period, which will create a three-month period for limited restaurants to convert to restaurants in north beach. the maybe and the board of supervisors are on different pages when it comes to helping small businesses. a report that takes over a year

and a half for small businesses to open and the fact that the board has taken zero action on that and the mayor has shows where the board's priorities lie. and so thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> speaker: hi, i'm sarah ogleby. i'm in district 9 and i'm concerned about the small businesses in my neighborhood that are suffering right now. to read the petition that we signed, that was written by robert fruchman who just spoke, we're in a crisis. we could lose half of our businesses. this critiqued storefronts for years and we need decisive action to keep existing

businesses alive and allowing businesses to open up sooner. all of the th concerns and probs discussed right now, they can be worked out and i believe that the community process can genuinely work these out, but we need emergency legislation now. this ordinance will give neighborhoods, shops and restaurants, the tools that they need now. and for most businesses, the law will reduce processing permits to years to one month and allow restaurants to move patios for social distancing. and nonprofits will be able to open neighborhood offices and vacant storefronts. i'm speaking in full support of this legislation and i'm listening to actual business owners here for telling you that be everybody who is speaking in support today, let's look at

this. thank you. put. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning. i'm danny sauder, i'm running for district 3 supervisor and i support this legislation and i cannot thank mayor breed and her staff enough for their leadership to take action on this in a city where it takes 11 permits to open a food truck, this is legislation need in a city where we have 20% vacancy rates and in a city before the pandemic, we need this. i wish we could have done this at the board. but here we are years after the small business crisis began and talking about this today, precisely because the board has chosen not to take action. even when we had chances, like last year, a bill with business streamlining, it came out with carve-outs for districts, including mine.

so the status quo today means high vacancy rates and 300 plus days to open something that should be as simple as a cafe and i don't think that is acceptable. i don't think that's what we see on our streets. i think this should be the way forward that if you work hard enough and if you have the idea you believe that you can make it in san francisco, not politically connect order have a ph.d. and planning code. >> speaker: i'm calling in support to make this an emergency ordinance rather than a ballot measure. this is ver complicated enough o

allow for community measures and i would be in favour of having this emergency rather than an about-measure and that it would supercede any ordinance in place. thank you. >> are there any additional callers? >> operator: that completes the queue, president chair. >> then, public comment is closed. colleagues, did you have any comments or questions before i make last comments and we move on? >> i have a few comments. >> thank you. and i do want to thank the mayor's office for bringing this forward. at the beginning of the year, i worked on small business reform

legislation exi'm pleased that this proposal incorporates similar elements which includes requiring departments to review business, permit applications and conditional approval for applicants who need to make minor corrective action and requiring departments to take responsibility for delays or errors and to compensate the applicants who suffer as a result of those delays. i think that's extremely important. it's been far too hard and far too long to open and operate -- it's been far too hard for far too long to operate a small neighborhood-serving business and this pandemic has made that problem more acute. we know over 120,000 people in sanfrancisco are out of work and there are those that suggest more than a third of small businesses will not be able to reopen and i believe it was confirmed today. we'll see the impact of this catastrophe and the dark windows of every occupied storefront and

i've heard from businesses like the grove and pizzeria delfina who are restruggling to reopen locations throughout the city. if we don't relieve these administrative burdens, our beloved institutions will be forced to close. the beneficiaries as we know will be big-boxed chain retail stores who have the capital to better withstand the recession and absorb the time and cost that it takes to really get through our antiquated permit structure. these businesses who will benefit from this ordinance are locally-owned businesses and the ones that we all love and rely upon. and we owe it to them to do this. they employ our residents and the revenue they generate stays in our community and they create the vibrant merchant quarters attracting thousands of tourists to our city every year and the people of our city have been devastated by this pandemic. we all know that. the road to economic recovery

will probably be very long. and i know that we here in city hall will not have all of the answers and we will not be able to dictate what the economic recovery is exactly going to look like, but whatever form that takes, it will be let by the people of this city and i believe we have a responsibility to make sure that we give them every opportunity to succeed that we can and remove every obstacle in their way. i believe this does that. and i believe that the timing is right to have this on the ballot and i look forward to supporting this item as it moves forward. thank you, mayor breed, and those who have worked on this for putting it forward. and that's it. >> thank you, supervisor stephanie. supervisor mar. >> thank you to mayor breed and her staff, the office of small business and planning department for work on this important

measure. again, i'm just concern -- my only concern is around the urgency and i really haven't heard a compelling reason why this should move forward as a ballot issue. into 2021 and i would prefer to see us work together, the board work collaborativetily to work on an ordinance put into place sooner. i know businesses in my district are not reopening and i know there will be a lot more and this is an urgent situation. we can't wait until 2021 to address this. thank you. >> thank you. and yes, i agree. with both of my

colleagues and thank you to mayor breed and to her staff for taking this on and putting forward many crucial changes that i absolutely agree with and believe cannot wait. and just a couple more detailed questions and then, you know, i make up the offer of working together with the mayor of putting this forward right now as a emergency ordinance. and there are little changes that i would like to make, to make this stronger and more beneficial to small businesses. and then, maybe make a couple of tiny changes to take into account different vulnerable communities. but, again, the vast, vast majority of this, i agree with as is, and i have no doubt that many of my colleagues do, as well, because we are all just,

quite frankly, racking or brains on how to help our favourite, favourite small businesses that are really closing day-by-day and are accumulating enormous amounts of back rent they will never be able to afford to pay in full. they need relief. we cannot wait until january to do so. having said that, in tem in terf the zoning tables, i know that -- i have note ed this none of the article 8 chinatown zoning tables amended and the same is true of the mission and ctd and 24th street mission and if there was an -- if there is an intent to potentially exempt these particularly zoning

districts where there have been extreme displacement crisis going on, will we have an ability to do so if this charter amendment passes?

>> in just exempts them from 90% of the changes in the ordinance. maybe not 90. that's a bad guess, but a lot. >> at the end of the ordinance, there's a three-year freeze and does that mean that no changes can be made to the zoning control tables restricting uses that we know are connected to gentrification and sensitive communities in that three-year time period? >> it just means you can't undue what the initiative has done and in a lot of districts, it's permitted things as of right and the boa board would be able to

reverse that. but where the initiative was silent, such as the mission in chinatown, they could then restrict uses even further than they are now or they could liberalize those uses. >> ok, so it could be done in chinatown in the mission but not elsewhere in the city. >> correct. >> ok. those of all of my questions and thank you so much for the hard work on this and i really would love to pursue this together with the mayor as an emergency ordinance, and so hopefully they'll go into effect next month instead of january of next year. and it really is this modern and this urgent and so, i will make a motion that this item has been heard and to file it.

if we can take a role call vote on that motioner. motion. >> on the motion to file this matter -- (role call). >> the motion has passed. >> thank you so much. can you please read item number 4. >> item number 4 is a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to remove the staffing requirement to require police department to submit a report and recommendation regarding police staffing levels to the police commission every two years and the election to be held on november 3, 2020.

>> weavchief moser, would you le to make comments? >> i'm here also. >> no, i would not like to make comments? >> yes, president yee. >> we've had a good extensive talk on this item and i want to thank chair ronen and colleagues and i would like to thank the cosponsors of this charter amendment, supervisor ronen, pe seconpeskin, fewer, mar and the community members, stakeholders who have worked hard to bring us to this point and reached out to support this effort.

this would establish a process for setting police staffing levels for the city and every two years thi, they would make recommendations on the findings. the second thing that i would do, it would remove the requirement that sets the police staffing at 971 duty-sworn officers. and this is essential to allow the city the ability to make decisions informed by the comprehensive staffing analysis and give the city freedom to make policy decisions to region and improve our public safety services. as we mentioned last thursday, the minimum staffing level is outdated and now 25 years old

and it was never at any point in a time based on the workload of the department. we are in a pivotal sort of moment in our city and in our country when it comes to the role of the law enforcement of our communities and the public safety services will ensure we are all safer. we must ensure that public safety services prioritize the safety of everyone in the city and truly meet the needs of our diverse community. i hope you will support on placing this on the november 3,, 2020 ballot for the voters to weigh in and that's all i have to say for now. >> if you. thank you. >> if there are no comments from

colleagues, we'll open this up for public comment and each speaker will have two minutes. >> sorry, my screen shut down on me. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is (146)661-5309. press pound and pound again. press star 3 to line up to speak.

please wait until the system indicates you have been un-muted and you can begin comment. are there any speakers on the line? >> operator: yes, currently 13 callers in the queue. >> speaker: i live in san francisco in district 4 and thank you for listening to us last thursday regarding maximizing police presence. this is a big step towards properly demonstrating san francisco's values, as well as making changes in our lived experiences. public safety comes from investing in our communities rather than criminalizing them. we are calling once again in support of the charter amendment to eliminate the sfpd staffing requirements. please recommend to the board of supervisors. we look forward to working with you to defund the sfpd. thank you so emergency.

much. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> speaker: i'm very glad to see this moving through to the next step. this staffing requirement was another example of the path influence of the police officer's association which has continued for many decades to bully the police commission expect board of supervisors. in fact, there's a movement now to get rid of the police officer's association, period, because it doesn't act as a union at all. there's no bargaining with the staff and, also, it is time for us to start thinking about how to transition the militarized

police officers to nonviolent work when this passes. i thank you, president yee, to move this forward and the timing is perfect and we need to figure out how to initiate it as soon as it's passed. thank you all for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning. i live in san francisco in district 8 and thank you for the meeting last thursday on putting the removal -- this demonstrates san francisco's values. public safety comes from investing in our communities, not by decriminalizing them. this is not new, this call for abolishing the police and it's

been around for decades. and i just want to make sure that all of you supervisors know that we're still watching. we've been calling in and asking about this for awhile and we want to make sure this gets on the ballot for the city charter. i'm calling in support of the charter amendment to eliminate the sfpd requirements and please recommend this to the full board of supervisors and we look forward to defund the sfpd, defund, dismantle and abolish. >> next speaker, please. >> speaker: good morning. i live in district 6 and thank you to listening to the community last thursday and putting the removal of maximizing police presence into this amendment. this demonstrates san francisco's values and public safety comes from investing in communities, not criminalizing

them. we are calling once again in support of the charter amendment to eliminate the sfpd staffing requirement. please recommend this to the full board of supervisors. we look forward to working with you to defend sfpd and reinvest in our communities. >> speaker: thank you for amending this measure last week and supporting it thus far. i would ask you to continue to support it today. this hard requirement of a number of officers in the way of so many things. we could civilianize traffic enforcement and civilianize outreach to unhouse people in san francisco who rightly do not trust cops and there's no much to do if we could cut back the overstaffing of sppd's sworn

force. please recommend this for tomorrow so we can advance this towards the ballot. thank you. >> thank you. >> speaker: hello, supervisors. i've lived in san francisco for 35 years and i want to make a procedural comment and this is addressed to the selector clerk. we need to be able to see the supervisors during public comment. it is not ok just to have a static title card on there. i really hope that you will address this. i've been in contact with sergeant stacie youngblood about this and hopefully the police commission will be making these changes and supervisor ronen, i did try to contact your office about a month ago on this issue. but apart from that, i want to

thank you for listening to the community last thursday and putting the removal of language regarding maximizing police presence into this amendment. and this change properly demonstrates san francisco's values and reflects the data and our lived experiences. public safety comes from investing in our communities, not criminalizing them. we are calling once again in support of the charter amendment to eliminate the sfpd membership staffing requirement. please recommend this charter amendment to the full board of supervisors. we look forward to looking with you all to defund sfpd and reinvest in our communities. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next speaker. >> speaker: good morning, supervisors. i'm a resident of supervisor ronen's district. i wanted to call again to thank

you for listening to the community and removing maximized police presence and moving the charter amendment forward today. i wanted to just give a brief comment to the organizational work that's been happening and a shout-out to defund sfpd now. we look forward to meeting with you one-on-one to discuss the concrete ways to cut the budget of the sfpd and this charter amendment is crucial because it gives us more flexibility in the budget and we need to reallocate resources to services that make us safe. supervisor yee, thank you for bringing this forward. one comment i wanted to make is that, this is a predominantly black campaign and we're turning out plentiy new voices and voters and that means they are not familiar with who is and who is not present. we appreciate your patience in

listening to them, even though they are first-time commenters and may not be what they're used to hear. this is a good thing for democracy and hopefully, it will be engaged in the november elections and elections to come. thank you for your time. we look forward to figure out ways to make the budget represent san francisco's values. and ps, supervisor yee, when the time comes, please defund sfpd. and thank you so much. goodbye. (please stand by).

-- in showing how to truly represent democracy and respond to what the people want. and when there is this outpouring of energy from the people, to see you actually responding to it and giving us a chance to make that official on the ballot, it's great. and i always like -- i want to shout out the defund sfpd campaign under the leadership of the caucus, and it's an incredible work activating people like me to give public comment for the first time and maybe start to believe in

representative democracy in our city again. so, thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. todd snyder for district 5. i thank you for amending this measure next week and supporting it thus far. i ask that you continue to support it today. and i want to point out that an arbitrary number of sworn police officers provides no flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of our city. and this came from a consent decree entered into in 1979. and lifted in 1998. it has no relevance to the city today. so i urge you to continue to support this measure and to put it before the voters on the ballot in november. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please.

>> caller: i already spoke once and i have been unmuted. >> clerk: i believe this person has already spoken before per their comment. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: yes, i'm a native san franciscan, and i'm in my 60s. i want to express that changing the charter to minimal staffing is a deadly public policy decision on your part. no doubt that criminals are intercepting this message as an opportunity to commit rape, murder, assault, theft, and an endless list of criminal activity. i hope that you've also given thought to potential international terrorism. we're really in a vulnerable position. you also place on police officers that extremely higher risk and you will be responsible for their deaths and for their injuries. this city has really turned into

a complete cesspool of crime, bad governmental regulations and unsafe decisions. the current number of police officers does not even meet the growing population of residents. we have truly a major shortage here. and i'm really disgusted by this anti-police sentiment. i'm an older resident and this place is really changing and it is really upsetting. i'd like to know who strong-arm you to creating in unsafe proposal. the line message here is that you never, never, never compromise public safety. someone will die. additionally, you will be responsible for the deaths of more police officers. it's happening as we speak. stop do, this and do the right thing. and it's not who's right, it's what is right. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors, my name is gracie and i live and work in district 4. i just would like to address that police officers actually commit rape often and they're never charged for crimes such as rape and murder. thank you for listening to the community last thursday and putting the remight hava removae police into this language. this demonstrates san francisco's lived experience. public safety comes from investing in our community, not criminalizing them. i thank the socialist of color caucus. and calling in support to eliminate the sfpd minimum staffing... (indiscernible) we look forward to working with you

all to defund sfpd and to reinvest in our communities. thank you. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is sarah and i live and work in san francisco in district 1. thank you for listening to the community last week and putting their language regarding maximizing police presence in this amendment. this properly demonstrates san francisco's values and reflects the data and our lived experiences. public safety comes from investing in our communities, not criminalizing them. and to the caller who spoke before me, he said that amending charter will increase crime and that people will die. people are dying at the hands of police officers and as a survivor of sexual assault and rape i can tell you that police have done nothing for me to support me or to bring justice

to me in any way. so the current state that we're living in is not actually beneficial for the people of this city. i'm calling once again in support of the charter amendment to eliminate the minimum staffing requirement. and i'm asking you to please recommend this charter amendment to the whole board of supervisors. i'm looking forward to working with you to defund sfpd and to reinvest in our communities. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hello, supervisors, my name is sage and i live in district 11, and i work in district 7 on occupied land known as the alono. i feel odd thanking you for doing what is the will of the people but i'm pleased to see that it was removed from the amendment. i want to further recommend that this be taken to the entire

board so that it actually makes it on to the ballot. a couple of things. i'm still absolutely perturbed about the fact that you don't have your cameras on and that we can't watch you watching us. i'm a teacher. and one of the things about building community is about being able to watch people listen to you. we need to see your non-verbals and we need to know what is confusing to you, we need to know what you are supportive of. we need to see you nodding or shaking your heads. we need to see you. right now this is the only way that we get to interact with you as the board of supervisors. and so this is incredibly important and i will be on the call later with the clerk to discuss this as well. i also just want to say to the earlier caller, it is the public who strong-armed the board into defunding and dismantling the police. this is what we want. and a few people calling in to

say -- who clearly have never interacted with police because if they did they would know that the police are an incredibly violent institution, and saying that more police is safer for them when they never interact with the police? it is imperative that you put those comments into context and remember who is saying them, right? those are the very rich people who are living in houses who never get the drive-byes that we get in the excellsior and never get racially profiled, all of that. so it's very important to remember that all of these comments or any comments that wants more police or who says that -- >> clerk: thank you, the speaker time has elapsed. just note if you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. and for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. at this time we have six callers on the line waiting to speak.

can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i work in san francisco as a police officer. i'm also a queer person of color who lives in the mission. i think that a lot of these issues are valid on both points. to the elderly woman who said that she's scared of not having police, that's valid. to the person who just informed that there are problems in the excelsior, that's valid. for the majority of people that thank me every day for patrolling and putting my life at risk, for trying to keep a community safe, how do we reconcile that with the people that feel that the police need to be abolished completely? i think that what needs to happen is that defunding seems like a great idea, but how do we do that prior to having other systems in place? how do we find thousands of mental health workers to go to these calls before we have those policies and those laws and

though employees put in place? to jump to this moment of saying get rid of the police completely doesn't account for the fact that there are drive-by shootings in the excelsior and it doesn't account for the fact that crimes like homicides and rapes and everything that the caller before me stated, those need to be investigated, those need to be dealt with. so abolishing the police right now in its current form is not going to keep our community safer. and while i completely am aware of our history, of our oppression, and the violence that police departments around the country have put on the communities they are supposed to serve, that needs to change, but we need to set up a system prior to pointing a finger and accusing every police officer in this country of doing harm because that's just not the case. the silent majority of people that i interact with thank me every single day. and that gets left out of the conversation. and like i said, i think that

both sides are valid, but we really need to stop for a second and not have a knee jerk reaction and try to dismantle the system before the next system is in place. we've seen that happen and i -- >> clerk: thank you, the speaker time has elapsed. thank you. hearing from the next speaker, please. >> caller: i'm happy to speak immediately after the police officer. it's an interesting listening at the end. what i would say here and i say wanting to defund and abolish the police entirely is that i don't think that they make us safer. i don't think that they're there for the right reasons. i don't think what they do makes our society better. i think that they're there to oppress us. i think that they have nine out of 62 rapes solved in the last year, but they've shown up to every protest with brutal

military arm, oppressing people at their convenience. now you gather in this city, you will see the police oppressing. you're right, they don't have the resources to apparently to be able to address violent crime. they're not good at that. they don't have the resources to be able to address homelessness. they're not good at that. they don't have the resources or even a division to address vehicle theft anymore. they're not good at that. what they're good at is political oppression and brutalization of civilians. so they do. they politically brutalize us. they disburse us. they prevent us from gathering. there is no reason to have -- even a single one of those pieces of shit violating, brutalizing our city.

we should disburse of them. we should abolish them. the police are pieces of shit. abolish the police. they're violent. this system that we have built is criminally unjust, racially biased, and disgusting. the free world -- >> clerk: thank you, speaker time has elapsed. can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: my name is mike chan an and i'm in district 2 and i'm in support of this charter amendment. we've had this on the books for 20 years and we have not matched it. we should be based on a public conversation and something not based in the charter. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, can we

have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is anita and i live and work in san francisco in district 5. i want to first of all to just echo the sentiments of the previous two callers who so eloquently described why polic policing can be fixed. and i want to thank you for listening to the community last thursday and putting the remight haval of the -- removal of the language of maximizing police presence in amendment. this demonstrates san francisco's values and reflects the data and our lived experiences, which is really important to highlight those two words. public safety comes from investing in our communities, not criminalizing them. we are calling once again in support of the charter amendment

to eliminate the sfpd minimum staffing requirement. recommend this charter amendment to the full board of supervisors. we look forward to working with you all to defund sfpd and reinvest in our communities. thank you. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you, can we have the next speaker. >> caller: oh, hi. so i am also calling in support of this amendment. i do not necessarily support defunding police, but i believe that the police need to provide essential services as the police woman who called earlier about drive-by shootings, we do need them for a lot of things. however, there is certainly no reason for having an arbitrary minimum of police. and so certainly -- an amendment

that would allow the city to have the politicsibilit flexibie amount of police and to explore different avenues of dealing with problems in a city and trying to use social services -- social services is great. and so, yeah, i support this amendment. but i do think that the police are essential. i think that's everything that i had to say. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller. caller: hello, i'm shawn taylor and a resident of district 9. i wanted to voice my support once again of putting this amendment on the ballot. thank you to supervisor yee for removing the language that we requested. thank you also to all of the members of the board that have co-sponsored this charter amendment. in response to a previous caller i would like to say that i don't

think that international cells will target san francisco because we changed our city charter to allow for dynamic police staffing in the city. honestly i think that there's an argument against this amendment is that the proponents are resorting to big threats of terrorist attacks. and (indiscernible) thank you again and i'm looking forward to seeing this on the ballot. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller. >> caller: hi, i am a district 5 resident and a parent. and i want to thank supervisor yee for proposing this charter amendment. i am supportive of it, but it's a good start. for example, there's still -- it still allows for converting from sworn divisions to only become

civilian if it becomes vacant. for example, as the school district said that we no longer want s.r.o.s in our schools. the police chief said that those decisions simply be moved to other places. and that's not what we want. because that doesn't allow any funding to be reallocated to youth programs, to violence prevention, to something like programs for youth. so those positions need to be removed. we need fewer officers. that's the whole point of this. so as we said, it's a good start. i appreciate you proposing this. i appreciate all of the supervisors supporting it. and i look forward to voting on it. but it needs more work. so thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller.

>> caller: hi, my name is emily and i live in district 9 and i'm calling in support of the charter amendment and i'm glad to see this moving to the next step. thank you for listening to us on this, and thank you for president yee for moving this forward. i'm also calling for the amendment to the full board of supervisors to have a minimum staffing requirement. and i see abolition as the road to fully doing what's best for the city of san francisco. and for everyone in it. when we defund and abolish police, we can have social services, education, and do things that the community really needs. and i don't think that this is a knee jerk reaction. public safety comes from investing in communities, not policing people, not criminalizing them. so, yeah, defund and abolish the police.

and i don't think that defund sfpd now, and i want to thank you the color caucus, for all of the work they have done to make (indiscernible) in giving people like me to call in for the first time. i'd like to echo the sentiments -- or not the sentiments, like everyone has been asking to you turn your cameras on and you need to do it so that we can see you and see your reactions. and that you can actually show that you're listening to us. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: i'm a resident in district 11 and there are constant cops patrolling our neighborhood. that's what we mean when we say they drive by. this neighborhood takes care of each other but the cops are constantly present on in our neighborhood. they have their eyes on

neighborhoods that they deem need extra patrolling or monitoring which is basically racial profiling. a cop is a cop and they where they are working. you're engaging in a racist, violent system. when we defund the sfpd we can use those resources to pay and open up more jobs in mental health professions, equitable housing,ette set. by defunding sfpd we are building the system to take care of our community. this is not a knee jerk reaction, unquote. this is a long battle for police and this white supremacist country on this stolen land. this argument for why you should defund and abolish police is built by marginalized communities. it is not new. most people thank cops because they're completely terrified of them. we don't need police. we need that money reallocated to real help, help that doesn't kill people or tear gas them during a viral pandemic.

invest in communities, not cops. and, yeah, turn your cameras on so that we can see that you're listening to us and not playing angry birds or stepping away for 15 minutes or tweeting back to people being really defensive, whatever that might look like. and make sure that every single district member is a part of these calls because this is not just supposed to be a small committee meeting. this should be an entire county-wide meeting for the city of san francisco. ♪ i now yield my time >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi. i have an interesting perspective to offer on this. my husband is in law enforcement here in san francisco. and i'm not willing to identify him publicly. we live in district 8 and supervisor mandelman's district.

and we have taken time to reflect on what's happening around the country and here. and my husband will be leaving his job, and while we understand that people are concerned about public safety, we don't think that it has to look like armed law enforcement or anything that resembles law enforcement. so it's a difficult decision and reckoning, we do stand behind the movement to defund the sfpd. many of our colleagues, we know that it means that many will lose jobs and we think that it's the right thing. thank you all for your time. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller.

>> caller: hi. my name is kate and i live in the tenderloin. i just wanted to say to the last caller, your husband is one of the good ones. thank you. thank you for actually listening to the people of the city, the people of this world, of this nation, everywhere. thank you for your service and for realizing what you need to do. to supervisor yee i want to say thank you for coming up with this motion that we're talking about today. i think that it's amazing how you have this coming before the floyd uprising, so to the people saying this is a knee jerk reaction, again, this has been in place since weeks before the george floyd uprising. this is not a knee jerk reaction, this is an ongoing problem that needed to be addressed in multiple ways throughout the world. so, you know, it's not a knee jerk reaction. to the caller saying not every

cop -- every single one deal with it. to the blue -- to the rest of the citizens, what you're seeing on the wall here is a blue wall of silence again. it's like what they want to hide behind. they don't want us to know that they're just typing on their phones and not paying attention. they're hiding behind a little blue wall again protecting police in every way that they can. they want us to not be able to see them. to the people behind the blue wall protecting them and protecting police, we see you. we see what is happening. and if you want to be another portland, if you want to be another seattle, we're ready to be on the streets, trust me. i don't yield my time. go fuck off. >> clerk: can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, this is martin callincalling from district 5.

i wanted to call in to support this charter amendment. i think that minimum staffing for police is arbitrary and we should be able to defund the police, you know, as we need it in the city of san francisco. i wasn't going to originally call because i feel that, you know, this is really common sense and that the board will take this up. however, i did hear comment from a law enforcement officer who said that they are aware of police brutality. and i'd like to ask that officer if they're aware that brutality before or after the department ran vans into people and protesters during first couple days of black lives matter protests in san francisco. i was part of that crowd, you know, and i'm proud to support black lives matter and i do not appreciate having a van almost run me over on market street of all streets. again, i support this charter amendment. and, yeah, defund the police. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is lawrence and i live in district 9. i'm calling in in support of the charter amendment. i'm also glad to see that this is moving to the next step. thank you for listening to us, and thank you president yee for bringing this forward. as i said i see this as a positive initial step on the way to creating a better and more equitable society. equitable society where we're all safe and we all have access to the same access to the resources. we're currently not living in that reality, very apart from it. but, again, it's a very good first stip but w step but we sta long way to go. thank you and i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you, can we have the next caller. >> caller: yes, hello, district 11. i'm just calling to support the

charter amendment and called to say that as an individual and as an organizer with the (indiscernible) organization, we support the abolition of the police. and we -- this charter amendment is one step. and we also support community control. we will not be satisfied to deal with the replacement of police and sheriffs with privatized security and privatized law enforcement. we want community control and an end to this relic of slavery that infected and oppressed our society for way too long. >> clerk: we are going to move on. any additional comments? can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon.

this is alex calling from district 10. i'm also a member of d.s.a. i'm calling in support of the charter amendment. thank you, president yee, and supervisors, for considering this. you know, the thing was put on the ballot in 1994, the arbitrary minimum of police officers association, and frankly for way too long that interest has really seized control of the public spending here. and so i think this is a great first step for actually looking at public safety from an analytical perspective as opposed to, you know, just funneling our public money towards, frankly, a lot of people who live in nevada at this point. so i appreciate what you're doing here. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon.

(indiscernible) my name is roland w and (indiscernible) in 1964 to san francisco. please do not undo the minimum staffing for the citizens of san francisco. in the city charter, section 4.127, this is for the safety and protection of everyone in san francisco. it seems that i've seen less and less police officers walking the beat in san francisco, and i've seen an upping of more crimes and vandalism and crimes against seniors and streets littered with garbage and graffiti and people on drugs and drunk and urination and drug dealing and more in public. i am saying please maintain the minimum staffing levels for the police department. for the safety of the residents of san francisco, and (indiscernible) for the theft levels as they currently are before making any decisions.

the police presence in my opinion is a crime of deterrent. look around san francisco and walk around north beach, chinatown, union square, the tenderloin and look at how dirty it is. and the criminals that might be walking around. look at union square. look at all of the rioting and the looting and damage to property of everything. look -- oh, look at the public defenders. you want to release all of the criminals. look at the last public defender? what did he do? he died (indiscernible) and look at the current district attorney. he was the public defender and refuses to prosecute criminals. look at all of the crimes of the asian seniors. you know, the lady at the tunnel getting dragged into out of the car and her purse ripped off

her. and the old man (indiscernible) and got robbed and beat by the people up at hunter's point. i think that we need -- >> clerk: thank you, speaker time has elapsed. can we have the next speaker, please. >> chair, that completes the queue. >> president yee, do you have any closing comments before i ask my other colleagues? >> supervisor yee: no, i want to again thank the public for expressing their viewpoint, and actually i want to say thank you for everybody's respect. and as much as they are varied, there's legitimacy in everybody's point of view. and i want to really respect

that. >> thank you so much. supervisors mar and stefani, any comments? >> thank you, chair ronen. i wanted to thank all of the callers during public comment today and also at the last hearing on this item. thanks again to president yee for your leadership on bringing this important charter amendment forward. and i'm proud to co-sponsor this. this is a common sense change replacing the outdated and arbitrary minimum staffing level for uniformed police officers with a much more thoughtful data-informed and transparent process. and this is also an important part of our broader reimagining of law enforcement and community safety in this historic moment. so thanks again, president yee, for bringing this forward. i look forward to voters weighing in on this in november.

>> chair ronen: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you for all of the callers who have called in today. we are listening to you. i just want to repeat again, even when we have our cameras on during public comment you cannot see us for some reason but we are listening, we hear you. this is a very important time in our history, a very important time in our city. and i know that there are a lot of conflicting opinions and views on this. and a lot of hurt, a -- a lot -- we all know this is big. but, you know what, i do have to say and hope that we can all come through this together and be stronger and safer. and for everybody. so i just want to let everyone know that, again, thank you for your comments. thank you for your passion. thank you for, you know, for

going through this. i think that everyone -- i just want to again to reiterate that we will get through this and we will hopely do it with respect for one another and respect for all opinions and listening to everybody. so, again, president yee, thank you for bringing this forward and i look forward to continuing to listen and learning more from everybody on this topic, thank you. >> yes, i wanted to add my appreciation, president yee, for bringing this crucial, crucial item forward as a start to reimagining what public safety could look like in san francisco. we have to remove any mandatory requirements in the charter. and this is a no-brainer.

so i wanted to just express my gratitude to you for this work. and then, of course, to every member of the public who is engaging so consistently and regularly and in masses that i have never seen before on all of these items, thank you for telling us what you need and what you want. it is important for us to listen and to know. and with that, i would be happy to make a motion to send this to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee report. can we take a roll call vote on that motion. >> clerk: on the motion to recommend this matter as a committee report, to the july 14th meeting of the board of supervisors. supervisor stefani. aye. stefani, aye. supervisor mar. aye. mar, aye. chair ronen? aye. ronen, aye. the motion passes.

>> thank you very much. >> chair ronen: have a great day, president you're. mr. clerk, read item 5. >> clerk: item 5 is the charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to create the sheriff department oversight board to have recommendations to the sheriff and the board of supervisors regarding sheriff's department operations, to create the sheriff's department office of inspector general, under the direction of the inspector general appointed by the oversight board, to investigate complaints of noncriminal misconduct by employees and contractors of the sheriff's department and in-custody deaths, develop policy recommendations for the sheriff's department, and report quarterly its findings, results and recommendations to the sheriff and the oversight board at an election to be held on november 3, 2020. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. good afternoon supervisor walton, how are you? >> supervisor walton: doing great, thank you so much, chair ronen and to my colleagues on

the committee. first i just want to thank all of my co-sponsors, supervisors ronen, haney, preston, yee and mar for supporting this much-needed charter amendment to hold the law enforcement accountable. we have seen deaths in our jails, assaults in our jails and we have paid out in lawsuits because of sheriff misconduct. and this cannot continue to happen. we need this independent oversight over our sheriff's department when it comes to the investigations of these infractions. like the ones that i have just named. and we have other counties that have similar models in place like los angeles county. i want to thank all of the advocates who work with us on this charter amendment as well as the public defender, and the district attorney bodean, and the president kim romda, and sheriff. and the law enforcement cannot continue to go unchecked and this oversight is just one step in keeping everyone safe and

holding the sheriff's department accountable. just some brief reminder that this charter amendment will establish a sheriff's department oversight board of seven members who should complete a training and orientation on custodial law enforcement, constitutional policing, and sheriff department policies and procedures. this body will appoint the inspector general to evaluate the work of the sheriff's department, to recommend law enforcement custodial and best practices and conduct community outreach to give public input regarding the sheriff department operations in the jails and the conditions. this body will receive, review and investigate complaints against sheriff department employees and contractors. and this body will investigate deaths and certain assaults of any individuals in the custody of the sheriff's department. the body will also develop and recommend to the sheriff a use-of-force policy and a comprehensive internal review

process for all use of force and critical incidents. quarterly reports are submitted to the sheriff and the sheriff's department oversight for a report to include the number and the types of will complaints filed, trained analysis, and the outcome of each complaint. i'm looking forward to a positive vote for this to move forward today. i just want to thank you, chair ronen, for the time. >> chair ronen: thank you. do any of my colleagues have any comments before opening this up for public comment? no? mr. clerk, please open this up for public comment and every speaker has two minutes to speak. >> clerk: yes. yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. and the meeting i.d. is 146 661 5309. and then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak.

a system prompt indicates that you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you can begin your comments. do we have any public commenters? >> yes, we do, i will release the first caller. >> caller: hi, i want to (indiscernible) the police department and it was impossible to get (indiscernible) even though you're saying that you had (indiscernible) in the right area (indiscernible) and

had my hand up so you may want to check that system. people are not trying to (indiscernible) they are telling you what they want to do. they want to abolish the police department and the courts and the prisons so that we can have 90% of black people in this country that are killed by other black people, but really it should be pretty clear that the law enforcement people (indiscernible) -- it's not because they're anti-black, it's because they're anti-crime. so let's just get on board with trying to stop to trying to make the people of san francisco unsafe. so let's work on that. this is ridiculous if you think that (indiscernible) but we'll be there tomorrow. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, can we have the next caller, please. caller: hi, i was calling

in about the sheriff's commission and it's a good step but, again, a step towards reform. one thing that supervisor walton, we wanted to address that we wanted to work with you to reallocate budgets of multiple departments. thank you for your work on the sheriff's commission. unfortunately, you're not free until july 27th, it would be difficult to work collaboratively with you and the mayor, but we request a meeting sooner. we'd like to really work with you. so thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller.

>> caller: hello, (indiscernible) again i'm from district 8 and i live in san francisco and i just wanted to respond to the caller, just like the police, the sheriff, they do not have our public safety in mind. when i was protesting at city hall, protesting the curfew that is -- was a terrible curfew ims toed by the mayor -- imposed by the mayor -- there was police and sheriffs and the national guard all lined up by city hall. even though those protesters were entirely peaceful. so i just don't believe the sheriffs are here to provide public safety more than the police are. i support this amendment only because it gives more oversight of the sheriffs, but as another caller mentioned this is one step towards abolishing police, including abolishing the sheriffs. i wanted to respond that remark

about violence on black on black crimes. that's not true. police brutalize black and brown people every day and they always criminalize black and brown people. police and sheriffs are just not here to -- to advocate for public safety. so please advance this amendment, but, again, we want to defund and disarm and abolish the police and the sheriffs. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. can we have the next caller. >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair ronen: okay, thank you so much. any comments from my colleagues? no, supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: i want to thank supervisor walton again for his work on this and i look forward to it. >> chair ronen: thank you so much, supervisor walton, and with that i'm happy to make a

motion to move this item forward with positive recommendation to the full board as a committee report. can we take a roll call on that motion. >> clerk: yes, on the motion to recommend this matter as a report to the board of supervisors, meeting of july 14th. supervisor stefani. aye. stefani, aye. supervisor mar. aye. mar, aye. chair ronen? aye. ronen, aye. the motion passes without objection. >> chair ronen: mr. clerk, any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda for today. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. the meeting is adjourned. have a good day, everyone.

>> ♪ ♪ we are definitely pioneers in airport concession world a world of nationally if not entirely or

internationally >> everybody is cop us right now. >> the people that were in charge of the retail this is where that began. >> i didn't think we would have a location at the airport. >> we've set the bar higher with the customer commerce. >> telling me about the operator and how you go about finding them and they get from being in the city to being in the airport. >> so first, we actually find a table and once we know what we want a sit-down we go to the neighborhoods in san francisco and other people seminary of the retail let us know about the rain water and are excited to have the local operators in the

airport. >> we have to go going through the conceive selective process and they award a lease to the restaurant. >> they are planning on extending. >> we that you could out the china and the length evens and the travel serve and fourth your minds and it's all good. >> how long for a vendor to move through the process. >> i would say it could take 80 up to a year from the time we go out to bid until they actually open a restaurant. >> i don't know what we signed up for but the airport is happy to have us here. and, you know, even taking out the track simple things there's a learning curve >> with once we're here they

are helpful. >> it's an award-winning program. >> we're prude of your awards we have won 11 awards the latest for the best overall food address beverage program and . >> like the oscars (laughter). >> the professional world. >> tell me about the future food. >> all the sb national leases are xooirz and we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what your passengers want. >> well, i look forward to the future (laughter) air are we look fofofofofofofofo

>> one more statement. we are the one. that is our first single that we made. that is our opinion. >> i can't argue with you. >> you are responsible please do not know his exact. [♪] [♪]

[♪] >> i had a break when i was on a major label for my musical career. i took a seven year break. and then i came back. i worked in the library for a long time. when i started working the san francisco history centre, i noticed they had the hippie collection. i thought, if they have a hippie collection, they really need to have a punk collection as well. so i talked to the city archivist who is my boss. she was very interested. one of the things that i wanted to get to the library was the avengers collection. this is definitely a valuable poster. because it is petty bone. it has that weird look because it was framed.

it had something acid on it and something not acid framing it. we had to bring all of this stuff that had been piling up in my life here and make sure that the important parts of it got archived. it wasn't a big stretch for them to start collecting in the area of punk. we have a lot of great photos and flyers from that area and that. that i could donate myself. from they're, i decided, you know, why not pursue other people and other bands and get them to donate as well? the historic moments in san francisco, punk history, is the sex pistols concert which was at winterland. [♪] it brought all of the punks on the web -- west coast to san francisco to see this show. the sex pistols played the east coast and then they play texas and a few places in the south and then they came directly to san francisco. they skipped l.a. and they skipped most of the media centres. san francisco was really the biggest show for them pick it was their biggest show ever.

their tour manager was interested in managing the adventures, my band. we were asked to open to support the pistols way to that show. and the nuns were also asked to open the show. it was certainly the biggest crowd that we had ever played to. it was kind of terrifying but it did bring people all the way from vancouver, tee seattle, portland, san diego, all up and down the coast, and l.a., obviously. to san francisco to see this show. there are a lot of people who say that after they saw this show they thought they would start their own band. it was a great jumping off point for a lot of west coast punk. it was also, the pistols' last show. in a way, it was the end of one era of punk and the beginning of a new one. the city of san francisco didn't necessarily support punk rock. [♪] >> last, but certainly not least

is a jell-o be opera. they are the punk rock candidate of the lead singer called the dead kennedys. >> if we are blaming anybody in san francisco, we will just blame the dead kennedys. >> there you go. >> we had situations where concerts were cancelled due to flyers, obscene flyers that the city was thought -- that he thought was obscene that had been put up. the city of san francisco has come around to embrace it's musicians. when they have the centennial for city hall, they brought in all kinds of local musicians and i got to perform at that. that was, at -- in a way, and appreciation from the city of san francisco for the musical legends. i feel like a lot of people in san francisco don't realize what resources there are at the library. we had a film series, the s.f. punk film series that i put together. it was nearly sold out every

single night. people were so appreciative that someone was bringing this for them. it is free. everything in the library is free. >> it it is also a film producer who has a film coming out. maybe in 2018 about crime. what is the title of it? >> it is called san francisco first and only rock 'n' roll movie. crime, 1978. [laughter] >> when i first went to the art institute before the adventures were formed in 77, i was going to be a painter. i did not know i would turn into a punk singer. i got back into painting and i mostly do portraiture and figurative painting. one of the things about this job here is i discovered some great resources for images for my painting. i was looking through these mug shot books that we have here that are from the 1920s. i did a whole series of a mug

shot paintings from those books. they are in the san francisco history centre's s.f. police department records. there are so many different things that the library provides for san franciscans that i feel like a lot of people are like, oh, i don't have a library card. i've never been there. they need to come down and check it out and find out what we have. the people who are hiding stuff in their sellers and wondering what to do with these old photos or old junk, whether it is hippie stuff or punk stuff, or stuffestuff from their grandpar, if they bring it here to us, we can preserve it and archive it and make it available to the public in the future. >> what we're trying to approach is bringing more diversity to our food. it's not just the old european style food. we are seeing a lot of influences, and all of this is because of our students.

all we ask is make it flavorful. [♪] >> we are the first two-year culinary hospitality school in the united states. the first year was 1936, and it was started by two graduates from cornell. i'm a graduate of this program, and very proud of that. so students can expect to learn under the three degrees. culinary arts management degree, food service management degree, and hotel management degree. we're not a cooking school. even though we're not teaching you how to cook, we're teaching you how to manage, how to supervise employees, how to

manage a hotel, and plus you're getting an associate of science degree. >> my name is vince, and i'm a faculty member of the hospitality arts and culinary school here in san francisco. this is my 11th year. the policemrogram is very, ver in what this industry demands. cooking, health, safety, and sanitation issues are included in it. it's quite a complete program to prepare them for what's happening out in the real world. >> the first time i heard about this program, i was working in a restaurant, and the sous chef had graduated from this program. he was very young to be a sous chef, and i want to be like him, basically, in the future.

this program, it's awesome. >> it's another world when you're here. it's another world. you get to be who you are, a person get to be who they are. you get to explore different things, and then, you get to explore and they encourage you to bring your background to the kitchen, too. >> i've been in the program for about a year. two-year program, and i'm about halfway through. before, i was studying behavioral genetics and dance. i had few injuries, and i couldn't pursue the things that i needed to to dance, so i pursued my other passion, cooking. when i stopped dance, i was deprived of my creative outlet, and cooking has been that for me, specifically pastry. >> the good thing is we have students everywhere from places

like the ritz to -- >> we have kids from every area. >> facebook and google. >> kids from everywhere. >> they are all over the bay area, and they're thriving. >> my name is jeff, and i'm a coowner of nopa restaurant, nopalito restaurant in san francisco. i attended city college of san francisco, the culinary arts program, where it was called hotel and restaurant back then in the early 90's. nopalito on broderick street, it's based on no specific region in mexico. all our masa is hand made. we cook our own corn in house.

everything is pretty much hand made on a daily basis, so day and night, we're making hand made tortillas, carnitas, salsas. a lot of love put into this. [♪] >> used to be very easy to define casual dining, fine dining, quick service. now, it's shades of gray, and we're trying to define that experience through that spectrum of service. fine dining calls into white table cloths. the cafeteria is large production kitchen, understanding vast production kitchens, the googles and the facebooks of the world that have those kitypes of kitchens. and the ideas that change every year, again, it's the notion and the venue. >> one of the things i love about vince is one of our

outlets is a concept restaurant, and he changes the concept every year to show students how to do a startup restaurant. it's been a pizzeria, a taco bar. it's been a mediterranean bar, it's been a noodle bar. people choose ccsf over other hospitality programs because the industry recognizes that we instill the work ethic. we, again, serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner. other culinary hospitality programs may open two days a week for breakfast service. we're open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner five days a week. >> the menu's always interesting. they change it every semester,

maybe more. there's always a good variety of foods. the preparation is always beautiful. the students are really sincere, and they work so hard here, and they're so proud of their work. >> i've had people coming in to town, and i, like, bring them here for a special treat, so it's more, like, not so much every day, but as often as i can for a special treat. >> when i have my interns in their final semester of the program go out in the industry, 80 to 90% of the students get hired in the industry, well above the industry average in the culinary program. >> we do have internals continually coming into our restaurants from city college of san francisco, and most of the time that people doing internships with us realize this is what they want to do for a living.

we hired many interns into employees from our restaurants. my partner is also a graduate of city college. >> so my goal is actually to travel and try to do some pastry in maybe italy or france, along those lines. i actually have developed a few connections through this program in italy, which i am excited to support. >> i'm thinking about going to go work on a cruise ship for about two, three year so i can save some money and then hopefully venture out on my own. >> yeah, i want to go back to china. i want to bring something that i learned here, the french cooking, the western system, back to china. >> so we want them to have a full toolkit. we're trying to make them ready

for the world out there. >> roughly five years, i was working as a high school teacher, and i decided to take my students on a surfing field trip. the light bulb went off in my head, and i realized i could do much more for my students taking them surfing than i could as their classroom

teacher, and that is when the idea for the city surf project was born. >> working with kids in the ocean that aren't familiar with this space is really special because you're dealing with a lot of fear and apprehension but at the same time, a lot of excitement. >> when i first did it, i was, like, really scared, but then, i did it again, and i liked it. >> we'll get a group of kids who have just never been to the beach, are terrified of the idea, who don't like the beach. it's too cold out, and it's those kid that are impossible to get back out of the water at the end of the day. >> over the last few years, i

think we've had at least 40 of our students participate in the city surf project. >> surfing helped me with, like, how to swim. >> we've start off with about two to four sessions in the pool before actually going out and surfing. >> swimming at the pool just helps us with, like, being, like, comfortable in the water and being calm and not being all -- not being anxious. >> so when we started the city surf project, one of the things we did was to say hey, this is the way to earn your p.e. credits. just getting kids to go try it was one of our initial challenges for the first year or two. but now that we've been doing it three or four years, we have a group of kids that's consistent, and the word has spread, that it's super fun, that you learn about the ocean.

>> starting in the morning, you know, i get the vehicles ready, and then, i get all the gear together, and then, i drive and go get the kids, and we take them to a local beach. >> we usually go to linda mar, and then occasionally ocean beach. we once did a special trip. we were in capitola last year, and it was really fun. >> we get in a circle and group stretch, and we talk about specific safety for the day, and then, we go down to the water. >> once we go to the beach, i don't want to go home. i can't change my circumstances at home, but i can change the way i approach them. >> our program has definitely been a way for our students to find community and build friends. >> i don't really talk to friends, so i guess when i started doing city surf, i started to, like, get to know

people more than i did before, and people that i didn't think i'd like, like, ended up being my best friends. >> it's a group sport the way we do it, and with, like, close camaraderie, but everybody's doing it for themselves. >> it's great, surfing around, finding new people and making new friendships with people throughout surfing. >> it can be highly developmental for students to have this time where they can learn a lot about themselves while negotiating the waves. >> i feel significantly, like, calmer. it definitely helps if i'm, like, feeling really stressed or, like, feeling really anxious about surfing, and i go surfing, and then, i just feel, like, i'm going to be okay. >> it gives them resiliency skills and helps them build self-confidence.

and with that, they can use that in other parts of their lives. >> i went to bring amy family o the beach and tell them what i did. >> i saw kids open up in the ocean, and i got to see them connect with other students, and i got to see them fail, you know, and get up and get back on the board and experience success, and really enjoy themselves and make a connection to nature at the same time. >> for some kids that are, like, resistant to, like, being in a mentorship program like this, it's they want to surf, and then later, they'll find out that they've, like, made this community connection. >> i think they provided level playing fields for kids to be themselves in an open environment. >> for kids to feel like i can go for it and take a chance that i might not have been

willing to do on my own is really special. >> we go on 150 surf outings a year. that's year-round programming. we've seen a tremendous amount of youth face their fears through surfing, and that has translated to growth in other facets of their lives. >> i just think the biggest thing is, like, that they feel like that they have something that is really cool, that they're engaged in, and that we, like, care about them and how they're doing, like, in general. >> what i like best is they really care about me, like, i'm not alone, and i have a group of people that i can go to, and, also, surfing is fun. >> we're creating surfers, and we're changing the face of surfing. >> the feeling is definitely akin to being on a roller coaster. it's definitely faster than i think you expect it to be, but

it's definitely fun. >> it leaves you feeling really, really positive about what that kid's going to go out and do. >> i think it's really magical almost. at least it was for me. >> it was really exciting when i caught my first wave. >> i felt like i was, like -- it was, like, magical, really. >> when they catch that first wave, and their first lights up, you know -- their face lights up, you know you have them hooked. >> i was on top of the world. it's amazing. i felt like i was on top of the world even though i was probably going two miles an hour. it was, like, the scariest thing i'd ever done, and i think it was when i got hooked on surfing after

>> what we're trying to approach is bringing more diversity to our food. it's not just the old european style food. we are seeing a lot of influences, and all of this is because of our students. all we ask is make it flavorful. [♪] >> we are the first two-year culinary hospitality school in the united states. the first year was 1936, and it was started by two graduates from cornell. i'm a graduate of this program, and very proud of that. so students can expect to learn under the three degrees.

culinary arts management degree, food service management degree, and hotel management degree. we're not a cooking school. even though we're not teaching you how to cook, we're teaching you how to manage, how to supervise employees, how to manage a hotel, and plus you're getting an associate of science degree. >> my name is vince, and i'm a faculty member of the hospitality arts and culinary school here in san francisco. this is my 11th year. the policemrogram is very, ver in what this industry demands. cooking, health, safety, and sanitation issues are included in it. it's quite a complete program to prepare them for what's happening out in the real world.

>> the first time i heard about this program, i was working in a restaurant, and the sous chef had graduated from this program. he was very young to be a sous chef, and i want to be like him, basically, in the future. this program, it's awesome. >> it's another world when you're here. it's another world. you get to be who you are, a person get to be who they are. you get to explore different things, and then, you get to explore and they encourage you to bring your background to the kitchen, too. >> i've been in the program for about a year. two-year program, and i'm about halfway through. before, i was studying behavioral genetics and dance. i had few injuries, and i couldn't pursue the things that i needed to to dance, so i

pursued my other passion, cooking. when i stopped dance, i was deprived of my creative outlet, and cooking has been that for me, specifically pastry. >> the good thing is we have students everywhere from places like the ritz to -- >> we have kids from every area. >> facebook and google. >> kids from everywhere. >> they are all over the bay area, and they're thriving. >> my name is jeff, and i'm a coowner of nopa restaurant, nopalito restaurant in san francisco. i attended city college of san francisco, the culinary arts program, where it was called hotel and restaurant back then in the early 90's.

nopalito on broderick street, it's based on no specific region in mexico. all our masa is hand made. we cook our own corn in house. everything is pretty much hand made on a daily basis, so day and night, we're making hand made tortillas, carnitas, salsas. a lot of love put into this. [♪] >> used to be very easy to define casual dining, fine dining, quick service. now, it's shades of gray, and we're trying to define that experience through that spectrum of service. fine dining calls into white table cloths. the cafeteria is large production kitchen,

understanding vast production kitchens, the googles and the facebooks of the world that have those kitypes of kitchens. and the ideas that change every year, again, it's the notion and the venue. >> one of the things i love about vince is one of our outlets is a concept restaurant, and he changes the concept every year to show students how to do a startup restaurant. it's been a pizzeria, a taco bar. it's been a mediterranean bar, it's been a noodle bar. people choose ccsf over other hospitality programs because the industry recognizes that we instill the work ethic. we, again, serve breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

other culinary hospitality programs may open two days a week for breakfast service. we're open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner five days a week. >> the menu's always interesting. they change it every semester, maybe more. there's always a good variety of foods. the preparation is always beautiful. the students are really sincere, and they work so hard here, and they're so proud of their work. >> i've had people coming in to town, and i, like, bring them here for a special treat, so it's more, like, not so much every day, but as often as i can for a special treat. >> when i have my interns in their final semester of the program go out in the industry, 80 to 90% of the students get hired in the industry, well above the industry average in

the culinary program. >> we do have internals continually coming into our restaurants from city college of san francisco, and most of the time that people doing internships with us realize this is what they want to do for a living. we hired many interns into employees from our restaurants. my partner is also a graduate of city college. >> so my goal is actually to travel and try to do some pastry in maybe italy or france, along those lines. i actually have developed a few connections through this program in italy, which i am excited to support. >> i'm thinking about going to go work on a cruise ship for about two, three year so i can save some money and then

hopefully venture out on my own. >> yeah, i want to go back to china. i want to bring something that i learned here, the french cooking, the western system, back to china. >> so we want them to have a full toolkit. we're trying to make them ready for the world out there.