>> 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.

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪

>> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing

rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry.

our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved

whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important.

♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco.

>> it started in june of 1953. ♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition.

so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context.

for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪ >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique,

successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪]

[♪]