around that. and the fire safety those trucks are enormous but this allows that

it's really about creating positive change. and this block in question is in the block and it will benefit the sate on this block and show a lot of investments in the community not to mention who have worked tirelessly on that project. this will allow vehicles to pass through and benefit the neighborhood a lot. this will create a lot of opportunities for events on thursday and outside of thursday to engage the community. and this will help to invest in the community i hope you allow this legislation

>> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi i'm paul from the escape with from new york peas we have a business on 22 and bartlett. this has been in the works for two or three years. it's uplifted the whole neighborhood. this is specifically a partnership between government businesses and the local community. and i think it's a case of rising tied lifting all boats and will benefit all aspects of the community. so that's it thank you >> thank you very much. >> next speaker >> good afternoon. i'm the program director with the basic

education partnership with san francisco and running the cabin the ranch. for the last 3 years we've run cooking demonstratess and invited the english and spanish. we have haelth i didn't eating programs and how to shop the market. this last year we helped students to get jobs. we fully support this and the bartlett project to help folks get out into the community to see the bigger world and the parents can get a chance to be out in the community and eat food together and thank you so much for your time

>> thank you. next speaker, please >> (speaking spanish). >> does anyone want to provide translation? >> i'm the health and ammunition coordinator. >> we have cooking demos for families.

it is really great to see how families come to the market. and people have a lot of fun and it's a good time for people to anyone

>> 7 days a week 3 hundred and 65 a year we want that to be safer. it's a

we're happy to be working with the planning department and the fire department and insuring that flexibility for the traffic on the marketplace. again, i think that possibilities include a 4 inch curb we have we have the opportunity to do and not be limited by a lack of legislation thank you, mr. shall i >> next speaker >> i'm bill mccloud. for almost 20 years my office is in a building that abuts market street. i spend 3 years on getting a

bump on our residential street. and bartlett is a mess. it's been a mess for years and unsafe. and the proposal for the plazas a is really wonderful. market has been a great thing. the supervisors that at some point allowed a 5 story condo project to become an 8 story project. also the bartlett grag was underground and it would be wonderful to see the city make sure it transforms into a new space. i know you guys are not in the funding process but if the original design involved

pavements from side to side could be funded then the fire department would be happy and we wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be curb cuts. and i would love to see the original proposal find for funding from the city or smoirl so everyone will be happy. and the parking in the mission is a big problem it's getting compounded daily. ii want to say in leaving and it's a compromise by the parking issue. i hope you guys land use about address that and a thank you very much. i have two additional public comments cards

(calling names) >> hello, i'm zach. as you know and heard earlier today the facts are alarming. san francisco is currently the most deadly city in the united states of america. and i watch victim after victim gets run over. our committee unanimously said they'd support this package. our committee drafted a letter and we commend supervisor wiener's. we welcome the opportunity to continue to work with all the board of supervisors on this

important issue. thank you very much >> thank you, mr. bloomberg. >> i'm howard. i'm a resident. i'm a member of p sock. i support the efforts of chairman to take all of the agencies and put them together and coordinate their activities. mostly in support of the initiative we suggest we start talking with the state to get the urban issues resolved. as discussed earlier a lot of regulations were talked about in regards to the environment. it's important we show the state wire cooperating with each

other. we want to reduce serious injuries and facility. this is going to be a real challenge. we're going no, the wrong direction and really kworptd action is required >> any additional comment on items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. fall i want to thank the departments and members of the public to express their points of view. we talk a lot about having liveable and walkable streets and - if i could ask folks with their side conversations to take them outside.

thank you. we're not done with the items yet. we talk about having liveable and walkable streets. there is a significant public desire to improve the safety of our streets. this legislation will bring our process and standards in line with our words. i can say from personal experience and i know that colleagues have had the same experience but there are fewer things that are demorlz to our neighborhood to have the legislation shot down with

those education and enforcement are critical aspects to pedestrian safety on our

streets. we need to keep in mind that not all the education in the world is enough. if streets are designed in a certainty way you will have accidents. if streets are designed in a different way you will have less accidents. if you have places where folks can get across more quickly that will reduce accident plaintiff's and better voishlt. we need to make positive changes to our physical investments. so colleagues i ask for your support for items 1 though 5. we have several minor amendments. the first is for the amendments to the public works code.

the public works requests this. i have distributed. in addition for the review legislation on page 2 line 18 where it says the committee will submit a report twice a year is departments have requested it be once a year so it can be a more meaningful report. and the third one my staff drafted would be on the street design review committee legislation on page 1 line 25 adding subdivision 8. they may participate in the review of their project as necessary unquote.

those are the three amendments >> thank you first of all, i'm happy to make the motion for those amendments and i want to say i support this entire package. i want to thank supervisor wiener and supervisor. i think i want to take a moment and give a shout out to elizabeth i'm sorry to see you can go. we really need to consider the pedestrian advocates for moving a convenient that we've been frustrated on. i think that supervisor wiener and i have hoped this

legislation will be one step in the long walk to bringing safety on our streets. i want to take a moment and acknowledge the concerns we need to work through with our fire department on this issue. i do support what supervisor wooerlg and campos said. i hope the future conversations will help us to reduce the number of facility that are happening on a weekly and monthly basis. thank you supervisor kim and i will second the motion. i'm not sure if i missed it butd

a number of meetings with the

fire department. and many, many phone conversations and etc., and we'll continue to be in communication. we may not loopholes have a hundred percent on everything but we've continue to work in a clauf process >> i want to make sure we're including that amendment and i'm looking forward as we move forward on those legs to make sure we can approve our pedestrian safety. in terms of some of the issues that were brought up to in terms of how we can balance both >> thank you. so colleagues if there's no further discussion is there a motion to recommend the items 1 though 5? >> that will be the order.

>>. madam clerk call items 6 and 7 together >> files 6 and seventh amendment the subdivision code to adopt a policy that would be converted to the 2024 and restrict future buildings with a specified number even if owner accompaniment units. in was continued a few works ago. item 6 was the original piece of legislation has amended by supervisors chu. and then two weeks ago we duplicate the file it will be creating 7 and inserted an

amendment into the taking - and then he continued both items so we would have both versions on the table without unnecessary continuance. thank you for fayette that process. are there any public comment cards? is monotony filled out a card please do so and i'll call the public you will have two minutes to speak

(calling names) that will be the initial batch and come up in any order >> supervisors thank you for your our time. i think the original legislation that was presented was both positive and constructive and as it had been amended it's destructive to the affordable ownership. that's all i can say and a thank you >> next speaker >> good afternoon supervisors i'm affidavit. i'm a tic owner. the original intention was to

help the it owners and it's entirely possible that the owners will not get anything but be in a worse position. what started out to protect all tenants has turned into a 24 page confusing mess of a bill. the current proposal is nothing more than a wish list while doing nothing to help the people. it's a bait-and-switch not a compromise. i'm outraged about the legislation this is nothing more than coercion to get people to give up their rights. that has nothing to do with the lawsuits. there are no renters in the building this is not a

compromise. if anyone filed a lawsuit while - tic owners not only lose the benefits of the bill because of the 10 year fix in the lottery. i'm sure it's a much smaller number of renters than 81 tic owners. people invested all their savings to buy the units. now you pull the rug out from under them. shame on any of you who vote for this bill. and unless the tic owners get in the original bill. thank you and a good afternoon

supervisors. i'm elizabeth and i represent individual tic owners. the poison bill of the legislation helps the bypass project in if the lottery provisions are - this means the legislation gets tic owners neither the bypass or the lottery during that certainty legislation and even if a court finds federal and state that the suspense of the lottery is - where's the regard for the rulings of our judiciary system and where's the intent ic owners that the lottery provision is

suspended. i notice apart from the section 7 if the legislation is challenged on court on any other ground irrespective the lottery is still suspended for at least 10 years >> also have great concerns is to the lottery to resume. the ban on condo conversion. who says the government has the right. and the owner requirements once the lottery resumes at least for allowing the bypass program. we i please revise the lottery suspension or if the court deems

the lottery suspension invalid and - >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. long. >> hello supervisors i'm here to ask you to kill this initiative both of them. the original intention was made to be a benefit clear out the lottery. it's been hijacked by the programs. it's no secret among the activists community they have ever intention of making this permanent. now with the poison provision if anybody sues what we're talking about in reality reality a complete ban on all conversion 0

not for 10 years but for e forever. there is no benefit to anybody in the lottery. we're talking about a ban of conversions >> thank you and a good afternoon. i'm peter rights i'm with the small property owners of san francisco. our board has looked at those proposals and we would like to have those proposals killed. from the positive idea of allowing people to wait in the lottery by paying a fee while leaving the lottery intact to continue. the original proposal made an awful lot of sense.

the more thank you. lifetime leased of ownership requirement and so forth. it's off the radials. it's not living up to the original idea. i had something else that bothers me. if you read par 3 f there's an awful lot said we're allowing if the lottery continues to protect the tenants. there's nothing in here that talks about helping the owners or we'll study of possibility of having ownership in sfro. it's 37 point one percent which is very low. thank you