>> 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.