merchandise maintain a city permit consistent with other public spaces. printed material is excluded from this requirement. land-use is excluded further in the exemption. it prohibits smoking in the plaza, similar to other public spaces. it prohibits large, we'll but conveyances, such as shopping carts -- wield -- wheeled conveyances, such as shopping carts. it codifies what has always existed there, that the community benefit district puts out its own shares and tables in the morning, taking them back at night so that they are not stolen. there has been a fair amount of misunderstanding about this legislation. the plazas are not closed. there will continue to remain open, 365 days per year.

it does not forbid sitting or lying in the plazas. benches will still be available 24 hours per day. the chief of police requested that i insert a sit lie provision. i denied that request. there have been claims about this legislation being covered by other laws. i believe that that is not the case. penal code 647 e seems to apply to buildings and not outdoor plazas. the law is vague at best. there is no other provision on which to rely to enforce camping in outdoor plazas. it is not uncommon for the city to have its own specific provisions and the explicit about but is allowed in and not allowed.

we have a state trespassing ordinance and a local trespassing ordinance. smoking, the outdoor smoking ban in public spaces does not mention plazas. this way we are not just relying on the san francisco police department, which is the case right now. there are several amendments. i want to thank president chiu for becoming very involved in this legislation and talking to a number of different people. we have had good discussions over the last couple of days. there are two amendments that we have discussed the that i support. i wish to offer those amendments. those amendments have to do with sleeping and camping. my intent all along was to

basically important parts code on sleeping encamping bandns. the amendment would replace the language, being very specific, that the 3.1 to end 3.13 of the parts code would be enforced. that is one amendment. the other amendment is an amendment that the president suggested that i agree with and is in the spirit of what i intended. the provision that the movable chairs and table would be available until 9:00 p.m., restricted to neighborhood organizations putting up their own tables and chairs. if someone wants to bring their own share, they are welcome to

do that. the point is to enable them to do what they have always done, putting out their own tables and chairs in the morning, taken them back at night, so they are not stolen. those are the amendments that i am offering. i want to give my thanks to the president -- president chium 4 -- thanks to president chiu for his work on this. thank you. supervisor chiu: the supervisor has moved an amendment. the president has seconded it. that will be the order. supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues. i would like to thank supervisor wiener for the work he has done over the last couple of years. i want to take a moment to celebrate these.

we are pioneering a new way in using these spaces. it of course brings up the issues of how these spaces are used. this has been an intense conversation. i would like to thank the many stakeholders involved, as well as the coalition on homelessness and other neighborhood folks. introducing the amendments that i have discussed, they could not be used by anyone. that is appropriate. i know that there has been a lot of discussion about whether we wanted to add additional provisions to further

criminalize sleeping or camping in public spaces. given that we all agree that the parts code provides a decent way to get these issues, while it does make sense to treat plaza's like parks, we are not creating new criminal laws here and i think that is an appropriate change. i will also noted that in the parks code, there is language that specifically addresses individuals that may need social services. if they avail themselves, they can avoid being found and cited for these provisions. there is one issue that the supervisor and i have discussed that we have not come to agreement on. i would like to offer an amendment to strike section g of this legislation, dealing with wheeled equipment. i ask a colleague to do that for a number of reasons. first of all, from my

understanding, this does not have precedent in other cities. this would be the first to use a four-wheel the conveyance. it would prohibit someone with a four field -- four wwheeled conveyance to enter the plazas. it is difficult to walk around there, and i think it is important that we permit individuals that have such four wheeled conveyances to use them. it has been difficult to define which objects we would permit in which we would not. i certainly respect that the supervisor has taken a lot of effort to make sure that individuals are disabled and children but toys in strollers, and other advances, are not included in the legislation.

but i am worried that there are times when low income individuals might need to use carts to transport belongings to and from the castro, and that that would be prohibited here. there has been an issue about what this legislation is a tempting target or address. i have been concerned about whether we have created a rational basis for that. i certainly respect the perspective of the neighborhood on this, i simply happen to disagree. i would like to make a motion to amend section g, which continues into page 4 at line nine. supervisor avalos: is there a second for this motion? supervisor mar. is there any addition to the amendment?

supervisor mar: i respect the president's perspective on this and i understand his rationale. i will be voting against the amendment. i know that it does not talk about targeting, but this is not about targeting, it is about having small in a constrained public spaces where a large wheeled conveyance does not take that space. this is different than, say, a very large plaza space for everyone. i understand the rationale, and i will be voting against the amendment. supervisor avalos: any other comments on the amendment? seeing no one, a roll call vote on the amendment. >> [roll-call vote]

there are seven ayes, four nos. supervisor chiu: the amendment is approved. supervisor mar: i wanted to say that i appreciated the debate within the land use committee. it was, at times, contentious. many from the audience were on polar sides, targeting each other. i appreciate the amendments that supervisor wiener has already begun working on it. i appreciate the amendment that president chiu was working on. it was very polarized. from the homeowners and apartment building residents, talking about wanting a safer,

cleaner space, often the many advocates, youth advocates, the coalition on homeless, aclu, and others, talking about not criminalizing poor people in the neighborhood. i am appreciative of the shopping cart issue. it was a key one, life of it wasn't well meaning, especially this -- smoking prohibition, as secondhand smoke is so dangerous to all of us, i felt the civil rights issues raised by the shopping carts and possible targeting poor people was problematic, from my perspective. but i expect to be supportive of the legislation, as amended. thank you. supervisor campos: first of all, i would like to thank supervisor

wiener in his office for the work they have done on this issue, as well as presidents chiu, for his involvement. i'd like to thank those in the committee who have been very involved for the last few days. this has not been an easy issue for me. the way that i approach these, as a general rule you want to give as much difference as you can to the district supervisor with something that implicates the district. i also know that as a supervisor, it is very difficult to balance the interests involved in this. i know that supervisor wiener is going to do the best that he can, to strike the right balance. i appreciate the ways that he has tried to approach it. especially taking into consideration the concerns that raised by the aclu. credit goes to him for not including sit lie in this

legislation. i think that this is one of those issues where there can be a difference of opinion, where reasonable minds can disagree. on balance, i supported the amendment because i thought it made the amendment a better piece of legislation. on balance, i am not in a position today to support this. while i simply say that i appreciate the efforts made to address the concerns, i do have questions that remain. i believe that some of the legal issues that were raised by the aclu in their letter are issues that remain. more specifically, how broad the discretion around free speech is provided here in the legislation. along the lines of what the ninth circuit indicated in [unintelligible] case against the city and county

of san francisco, that we are burning more speech -- burdening more speech than is necessary with this. i do have concerns about whether or not the legislation as amended meets the standards for time, place, and the manner. i understand why some would support this as amended. my take is a the different. i also feel that when these types of laws come before the board, the key issue has repeatedly been the issue of necessity. while i understand that there are concerns that have been raised, we need to carefully examine whether or not existing laws already covered the contact at issue. while i appreciate that there is

some of] vagueness -- some vagueness to applications of the penal code, to me the fact that the police office hasn't forced that section of the penal code, i'd think that that is relevant. when we have had prior discussions in other pieces of legislation, we have had a police department telling us that they could not and would not enforce laws already in the books. in this case, enforcement to place even though the example was an isolated incident -- and who knows what that means? to me, that is relevant. i will respectfully disagree. i understand where my colleagues are calling from and i appreciate the spirit in which this legislation has been introduced and i appreciate the changes that have been made by president chiu.

harvey milk plaza has existed for many years in its current condition. while i am open to the idea of changing what has been taking place for the prior decade, i want to make sure that the evidence is clear before we move in that direction. for that reason, i will be voting against this legislation as amended today. thank you very much. supervisor olague: i am appreciative of the amendment, but like supervisor compostampoi cannot support this legislation at this time. i am a huge supporter of the plaza's, providing public spaces, things that are seriously lacking in the castro at many levels.

in district 5 we have prided ourselves in the use of the parklets. there is one near my home on fulton. they have provided a really positive place where people can gather, meet their neighbors, converse, and socialize. it really has to be vital for not just commercial districts in the areas, but communities. it is my sense, and what i have heard from members of the public, from the district 5 democratic club and the members of the harvey milk club and others, there is a concern that many homeless clear youth, who are not able to -- queer youth, once they leave the site, where

do they go? many of them go to the harvey milk plaza, where they are able to feel safe in an environment where they can continue to engage as friends and colleagues and young people who are experiencing a similar experience in life. i think that -- i do not think -- i think that this is a solution looking for a problem -- i read that somewhere -- and i think that's, in many ways, it is. you read about people with shopping carts being prohibited. claims were made that was not a direct attack on the homeless, but many people that i know of who are homeless, the only place they know of to keep their possessions are shopping carts. certainly, i have had no issues sitting in a public plaza with

someone who has a shopping cart. although i understand where the supervisor is coming from on this, for me at this time the question that i have, i suppose, has to do more with the plight of homeless clear youth -- queer youth. i know that this does not specifically target those individuals, but at some point i would like to look at the realities of setting up a drop in space, of where people can gather, because currently there is no such space for folks in that district. i know that at one time there was an old church on market that people had envisioned as being used as a report -- resource,

being part of that conversation. at this time again, there might be other ways of mitigating these issues. some laws of our -- are already in place. as we start to move towards these types of regulations, in areas like parklets and plazas, it needs to be a broader conversation where we might be able to put cyanate and other things that might mitigate the issues that people are experiencing. i think that for me, it raised the question of the plight of homeless queer youth in the castro. at least, that is what resonated with me most when i met with members of the public. that being said, i am not ready to support this at this time,

but i am open to reviewing the registration around the parts and a possible center for the homeless queer youth in the castro. a place considered a haven and a mecca in our community. supervisor chiu: thank you, supervisor. supervisor kim: i am generally philosophically challenged to the restrictions replace on public spaces in san francisco. i would like to echo the comments on being deferential to different neighborhoods and districts. having had similar requests for open space near sixth street, having turned down that request, i want to be consistent. to say that if we are not supportive of it in my district, i cannot support it in other

neighborhoods. i did appreciate the supervisors. on youth. we do have a lack of save space for you to hang out in. i did not grow up in this particular city, about me and my friends at night, we would often hang out in parts and in other spaces. i am not saying that this ordinance is in any way trying to counter that kind of activity, but i do appreciate the discussion, because i think we need to have a broader discussion on the space is available for young people, at nighttime, when the centers closed. i appreciate that being brought up. supervisor wiener: thank you. i appreciate all of the perspectives of my colleagues. i welcome you, colleagues, to

actually learn more about the plazas. i am glad that everyone is interested in them. i have a representative of the district, someone who has lived through there and has been walking there for the last 15 years. i have mailed to prospective, which is frankly shared by a significant swath of the neighborhood. it is not just about the condo owners next door who do not like certain been happening there. this legislation, and the issue is happening in the plaza, are the ones identified and advocated for by the people in the neighborhood. that is why there is broad support throughout the neighborhood. i think that it does do a little bit of injustice, or disservice,

to say that some of the neighbors nearby are cranky and unhappy and want to be changed. -- unchanged. the supervisor brought up the issue of the aclu. i had a long conversation with them. i think that concerns were addressed, to the extent that they were able to be. the shopping cart provision is gone now. the sweeping provision is identical to what is in our parks code. i have not seen a lawsuit filed against the parks code. in terms of the permits, the original language that we used, and i was reminded of this last night, but the original language for merchandise was, verbatim, from the parks code, and has been in the parks code for a long time. now, with the amendments that i

made, several amendments, it is much more liberal than what we already have in the parks code. again, the aclu is respectfully taking issue to any permitting scheme that could conceivably be applied to a protected activity, if we are not careful. we are looking at things that have been addressed, or addressed to the extent that they are able to be. with respect to 647e, i appreciate that the supervisor acknowledged that it was not clear. i think that some of the advocates want to have their cake and eat it as well, saying added is already covered. i said this in the press yesterday, that i'd bet my lunch that they would take the position that it does not apply.

finally, i do want to -- it is unfortunate that the issue queer youth keeps coming up. frankly, i think it has been an abuse argument in this context. i have been unconditionally supportive in the time i have been in the neighborhood, when neighbors tried to revoke use permits. i publicly oppose that and stated that i wanted to expand the hours. closing at 7:00 is too early. there needs to be a non-alcohol space for use in the neighborhood. i have been a champion of lgbt youth in the budget. i am absolutely committed to that. to suggest that this is in any way anti-lgbt youth is inaccurate and misplaced.

i will also say that having been using in going through this plaza for 15 years, from my own personal perception, there are not as many queere youth in these plaza's as there used to be. in my experience and my perception, there used to be many more. they are not there anymore because harvey milk plaza in particular is a very uncomfortable place for about a different kinds of people to be because of the horrendous behavior that happens in that plaza. this is not about query youth -- queer youth and accessibility to neighbors, it is about making it accessibility to everyone, whatever your age or income. this legislation achieve that. colleagues, i respectfully ask

for your support. supervisor elsbernd: i appreciate the supervisors' efforts. i am swayed by arguments and i wanted to raise the issue that there are eight members of the army milk club that have written to us, urging us not to support the legislation. it was a big issue in land use as well. i really do feel like, in many ways, supervisor, you are trying to address the concerns of merchants around the plaza. if i have to weigh in, i would have to do so on the side of the most vulnerable in the community. there are suggestions from a number of leaders, including

those who have signed on in opposition. not because i do not respect the work that you have tried to do to keep your neighborhood as strong as you can. i will be voting no on this ordinance. supervisor chiu: colleagues, i appreciate the debate and discussion today. this has been a difficult issue. when i first learned about this, i followed what happened at land use. i told the supervisor that we have all discussed what he needs to do, but also to address the concerns raised by various community voices. i have had numerous meetings with folks to bring numerous concerns. this is why i had asked the supervisor to consider the changes to the four major sections of this