421, also. >> thank you. any comments? any discussion? public comment? seeing none. next item, please. >> item 12 adjournment. the time is 7:04 p.m. >> thank you all. ♪ ♪

order. welcome to the march 14, 2018 rescheduled meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor jeff sheehy, chair of the committee. to my left is supervisor peskin, and supervisor tang is here today. the clerk is john carol, and i would also like to thank sfgovtv for staffing the meeting. i want to say one thing before we start and hear our first item. i have just come from the ruth asawa school of the arts, where i was there with the mayor, and i think we should all be filled with pride for our young people

in this city today. they are marching -- lying in, i guess is what they're calling it at my daughter's school -- all against gun violence. and the performances we saw at the school of the arts, i still have tears in my eyes. they are such products of our san francisco values. i -- you know, to me, i think what happens in san francisco, you learn to walk, then you learn to bike, then you learn to march, and these kids are ready to march, and this is going to be the generation, i believe, that carries the baton on for the rest of us that have been fighting all our lives for social justice, equity, human rights. this gun violence has motivated them, in washington, from the attacks on our muslim brothers and sisters, the immigrant

community. this severely impacts the kids who go to school at these schools. they fear ice raids, who fear their parents are going to be taken away. this is a motivated active generation who's getting ready to register to vote. the kids if they're 18, they're registering to vote, and if they're 17, they're going to register in a year. they want to know what they can do. they're ready to phone bank, to do what it takes, civil disobedience, direct action to do what it takes to make change in this country. so i've never been prouder. so any way, thank you, and mr. carroll, could you call the first item? >> yes. thank you. agenda item one is an ordinance to ban the sale of fur items in

san francisco. >> supervisor tang. >> well, thank you, colleagues for letting me take this to committee to hear this item again. just as a reminder, i just wanted to give a little bit of an overview of what has changed. originally, we had asked for the ban on the sale of new fur apparel products in july of 2018, and we've actually changed that date to give more businesses a phase in to january 1st, 2019. so i just want to make that clear off the bat as to what has been different since the last time we were here. just as an overview, i do believe that existing laws that we have in our country really provide very little if any -- no oversight over the fur farming industries and fur trade industries. i know there are many businesses here who are very concerned about this particular legislation, but i do believe

that we cannot turn a blind eye to what is actually going on in terms of fur farming. more than 50 million animals are killed every year for their fur, and 85% of pelts are coming from fur farms, so that is a reality that i think we all have to face today. and i think there are so many other alternatives now that make it available to us to be able to purchase a coat or a garment that will keep us warm that doesn't result in having our animals killed in these fur factories. and in fa a and in fact, many other countries have taken nationwide bans in fur farming, and i think we in the united states are very far behind. in addition to the humane treatment of animals, there are also huge environmental issues, as well. the official position of the humane society of the united states is that fur production is inherently cruel. but we have heard from a lot of

businesses and some have suggested that we could perhaps have some sort of a certification process to say that if apparel or fur products are coming from humane farms, but if that were even to be the case, i don't believe that's something we would be addressing here at a san francisco because most of the fur farms are not actually here in san francisco. it would be something that i would love to see happen at a national level if they're so desired to do so. so again, just a brief overview is that starting january 1st, 2019 in san francisco, it would be legal to sell, offer for sailor display for sale, trade, give or donate fur apparel products that's new in san francisco by any means. and secondhand products are excluded from this ordinance. so for example if someone had donated a fur coat to a goodwill, for example, that sale transaction is not included as part of this

ordinance. so you know we in san francisco, i think that we should be sending a strong message to clothing designers, fashion industry, many companies of which have actually already started voluntary eliminating the use of fur for their products, so i hope that san francisco will be joining with hollywood and berkeley in such a similar ban. during this time as well in the last committee meeting, we had asked the business community to work with todd egan from our controller's office to determine what the impacts are in san francisco, so i wanted to call ted up -- ted, yes, ted up first to present, and then, of course, i'm sure i'll hear from many of you during public comment, as well. thank you, mr. egan. >> thank you, supervisor tang and supervisors. as supervisor tang indicated, i'm here at her request, our office took a look at the proposed legislation and received a report from the san

francisco chamber of commerce last friday with the results of research that they had conducted on the potential impacts of this proposed legislation, so i would like to present that to you, alongside work we had previously done on the impacts. and just start off to hit what i think are some of the highlights of the proposed piece of legislation. again, supervisor tang alluded to most of these things. the legislation on january 1 would ban the sale, donation, manufacturing or gifting or other distribution of new fur products in san francisco. the possession of fur products would not be banned. there is no explicit ban of out of town sales or on-line sales, either. fur is defined as animal skin with hair, flees or fur fibers attached. it would not include other animal products like leather or lamb skin or wool. other items like dog and cat items would not be prohibited, and also use for products would

be allowed to be sold provided it was by a secondhand store, a pawn shop, a nonprofit organization or any other business that's not normally in the business of selling fur products. when we initially looked at this lemgs latio-- legislation attempted to look at the price number of fur that's sold in san francisco. the closest thing we can do it look at by census, at the state level. according to the census, there were $355 million in fur sales in the state in 2012. if you were to aassume that the fur sales share in san francisco was the same, that would work out to about a $10.8 million total of fur sales in san francisco in 2012. as i mentioned, last week, we were in receipt of a report from the san francisco chamber of commerce. they had sent the survey to 50

businesses and got nine responses. two of the large responses reported annual sales in excess of 4 million to medium sized retailers reported six between 500,000 and 700,000, and small businesses noted sales between 250 and 500,000. the chamber further believes that the 50 retailers in san francisco that they reached out to sell fur products, a total sales of about $40 million a year of goods that we prohibit under the legislation, so the chamber's estimate is about four times what we had arrived at from the census data. there are a number of reasons that may explain that. san francisco may have a disproportionate amount of fur sales because union station is

a region sales center of items, including fur products. there also may be a slightly broader definition of fur products that's affected by the legislation than what the census considers fur products, and again, there may also be differences in extrapolating from the nine businesses the chamber heard from to the 50 businesses that they believe sell fur products in the city. regardless of the exact number, and i don't believe we can get to an exact estimate, we believe that the proposed legislation is unlikely to have a significant economic impact overall uses our office's standard guidelines for determining economic impact. nevertheless as in the case of many types of legislation, a set of local retailers or a set of stakeholders would be harmed, small retailers that are specialized in fur sales

would probably find it hard to adjust to a new business. department stores i think would adjust much more readily. there could be a slightly weakening of the overall economy to the extent that new fur sales go to other sources, people traveling outside of san francisco to buy fur products. that may be one way that consumers react to this as well as making on-line purchases of fur products. a couple of ways of their sensitivity of these issues by law makers would be to phase in the legislation, like, for example, banning the wholesale of fur products before retail products to allow retailers to clear out their inventory. in addition, there are rules that are not incredibly clear in the legislation about who's allowed to sell used fur products. that could be turned into a broader permission for retailers to sell fur products instead of new fur products. so those are our thoughts in review of the legislation and

analysis that we have so far. i'm happy to take any questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. i do appreciate that, especially because the business community did ask us for economic impact analysis, and i saw the chamber's response about the $40 million impact, but i didn't get to see the -- you know, the data behind the supposed 50 businesses that they're talking about in which they base the $40 million, so i'm just kind of going off of what mr. egan is saying and you know what the chamber has presented on a very high level, but i did wish i had more data, but i understand sensitivities around sharing that information. so i'm -- you know, i'm open to hearing from colleagues or public comment first. i'm sure there are lots of questions that will arise after public comment.

>> supervisor sheehy: any members of the public that would like to speak. would you like to call it or do you want me to call it? speakers will have two minutes. please state your first and last names clearly. those speakers that have prepared a written statement will encouraged to leave it with the clerk to put in the committee file. in the interest of time, speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition of previous statements. so the first person, please forgive me if i misread your name, and if you could lineup over here, chin chi, jim lazarus, tiffany rose, karen flood, lindsey varic.

>> can i start now? >> supervisor sheehy: please. >> i would like to thank supervisor katey tang for the ordinance banning the sale of fur in san francisco. my name is chin chi. i'm a grandmother and i've lived in this city for 50 years. every year, 50 million animals are slaughtered for their fur. and like other animals in such farms, they lived a tormented life from birth to death. the 15% wildlife caught for their fur die agonizing death in steel jaw traps. it also pollutes our land, water, and air. in recent years, this pollution has increased because these fur pelts are not used as is but

are dyed colors. in the west, the popularity wearing animal fur seems to have retreated, and the increase of the quality and quantity of fake fur has made it completely unnecessary as a way to keep warm. but as pointed out by an article in national geographic in the eastern european countries, especially in russia and china, animal apparel garments have become very fashionable, especially for the newly rich clients. as long as there is a demand, the slaughter and pollution will continue. san francisco today is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the world, and moral positions this city takes. the city of st. francis will resonate loud and clear throughout the world, so i hope we will all come together and declare no animal fur in san francisco. it is not fashionable, it is an

atrocity. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is tiffany rose and on behalf of people for the ethical treatment of animals, more than 6.5 members worldwide, i urge you to pass supervisor tang's proposed ordinance banning the sale of real fur in the city. san francisco is forward seeking and full of people who care about animals and as mr. sheehy -- excuse me, is that correct? >> supervisor sheehy: yeah. >> stated, as stye full of people who take action for what is right. i was born here. i'm proof. 85% of the fur industry's skin come from animals who are kept in cramped, filthy wire cages on fur farms where they go insane from intense confinement and deprivation. these animals are killed by

able electrocution many animals are alive when their skin is torn off. en anywhered coyotes -- mother animals have even attempted to chiu off their own limbs to get to their starving babies. for all these reasons and more, fur is falling out of favor. berkeley and west hollywood have already banned fur sales, and in norway, they're banning fur farming. luxury designers, including bcbg max asria, and michael kors have dropped fur fashion. the time for san francisco to join the fur ban is now.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> jim lazarus. i think the work shows that there's a significant impact on san francisco retailers from this ban. one that goes beyond the value of merely products with fur. fur is -- and fashion retail is a huge part of san francisco's retail economy, and it drives worldwide customers to san francisco. you recently -- or recently, yesterday, received a letter from two international organizations in the fur -- the -- the international fur federation and their american counterpart, suggesting the ability to look globally at this issue in terms of practices of the fur trade, both farming and how the fur product is handled. fur is sustainable. faux fur is not sustainable. we believe this legislation

banning fur in san francisco will cost jobs, it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost revenue, both the sales and gross receipts tax to the city. it'll drive retail overall, not just for these products, but related customer visits to stores outside of san francisco. we are a fashion retail destination. if in fact this testimony says worldwide thinking on this is changing, then let's work globally to determine how these animals are raised, how they are processed for these products, and not ban locally a product sales that will hurt the entire retail community. this affects most districts in this city. obviously, district three, supervisor peskin's union square district is a major retail center, but so's stores in district eight, district four, district six. we ask you to slow this down.

we ask you to work with supervisor tang on another amendment to make this a global amendment and not a ban. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker. >> i represent the property owners and merchants in and around the union square area including 30 plus retailers that contain items with fur, and this is not just your grandmother's sable coats, this is fur on everything. it's on every coat, every trim, every hsu. this is a big business for union square. as part of our tourist destination, people come here to shop. this will seriously impact us as it is written today. first off concern about the processes, this is moving so quickly. we learned about this during the holiday season while we're trying to sell and make some money. the one time of year that

subway shuts down tx it's construction, we can breathe a sigh of relief. we thank katie tang for working with us. we worked with the chamber that is -- this hits us, this hits us hard. this is also in the context of all the other challenges that are happening with retail. we know department stores are down sizing in union square, stores are closing, vacancy rates are going up. we've seen this in a recent word with oewd. we've got a couple pending proposals on the june ballot for rent tax. we've got people on the street. this is hitting us hard, and now retailers are struggling, and now it's being dictated what we can and cannot sell. we need more time. i know you care about this, supervisor tang, as do we, but we need more time. we've been meeting with our leaders and we need to coalesce

around some amendments that we can get behind. so we ask for more time on this. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is randall, and i represent a quarter million californians and u.s. citizens. i'm very interested in what we heard today, first, from the economic impact survey, i heard words no significant impact overall, so it was very hard to hear that. i want to go back to what supervisor sheehy said when opening this meeting, and that is san francisco has a very proud tradition of standing up for what we believe in. this thing hasn't happened over night. we have colleagues, my colleagues personally have been working on this issue for over 30 years in this city, so this

hasn't come up over night. this is something that we've known about for a very long time. again and again and again, we see images and video from fur farms that is so disturbing that we in defense of animals have had to setup a program to help people who are so disturbed by what they've seen from the fur ciindustry, and ts is inherent to the production of fur, and that's why there's no way to regulate it. where i'm from in europe, they've banned the production of fur, and we would like to see san francisco make the cam passionate choice and right choice, and perhaps members in defense of animals would not shop in a store that has fur, so we would like the retailers to open their eyes to the new market that this opens for them. thank you very much. >> supervisor sheehy: thank

you, and i'll call a couple of more speakers. cassy keen, tanya campos, gene morilla. next speaker, please. just lineup, and get in line. >> hi. my name is lindsey vuric. i am he aa retailer, but i'm retired. i own stores in union station, pier 39, and the east bay. i'm certainly for this fur ban. i've been for 30 years going to fur free friday, and i've seen the decrease of fur use in san francisco, so this is a forward thinking thing. i've also been a member of the chamber of commerce in all these regional locations, and they're almost never forward thinking on this kind of issue. they're always sort of behind the curve in supporting any of this more enlightened

legislation, so i hope you support this. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, everyone. my name is cassy, and i'm an organizer with various animal rights organizations in the bay area. i want to take my time to tell you about my boy at home. his name is jonah. he's the sweetest softest person i've ever held in my arms. the softness of his fur does not make me want to wear it, and i don't want anyone else to wear it except jonah because it keeps him warm. taking his fur would cause him immense pain, and i saw him scared when we rescued him from

a tiny gauge cage in a fur far. i know that every individual on fur farms or confined in fur traps right now is an individual like jonah who feels pain and who wants to live. for me, i see the decision that you're all being asked to make today as a very simple one that boils down to the question, does san francisco want to support an industry that needlessly tortures and kills individuals just like jonah for no reason other than for humans to wear them as fashion, which it clearly is not. that's what i wanted to share with you today. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. good morning. my name is tanya. i am an organizer with direct action everywhere, and today i'm here to show my support for the san francisco fur ban. san francisco has led the way in many social justice issues,

a milestone that the sanctuary's city's movement occurred here in 1985, as an immigrant myself, i'm really thankful. this city has also protected people with disabilities, queer people and many other people with marginal disabilities, and it's only clear we protect animals. i'm very sensitive to the concern of small businesses, and we don't want anyone to struggle at all, but we see time and time that industries can adapt to changes. west hollywood has gone fur free, and they have continued to thrive. we see companies like michael kors, versace going fur free. not only the people across the world, people in our city are understanding this, because over 800 san francisco residents have sent letters in support of this ban, so it's time that san francisco

supports businesses that don't sell animal fur. support businesses that don't kill animals. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning and thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. my name is gene murillo, and i am a san francisco resident of 17 years and a member of direct action everywhere for the last four years. my message is brief today but to the point of what matters most on this agenda topic. regardless of a sector of the human community that would want to buy and sell furs in this city, this all boils down to certain facts. one, that it is more than conclusively proven that the fur industry traps, treats and imposes cruelty on nonhuman animals to the nth degree all ending in the ultimate death of

these creatures. two, that because humans have the capablity to do all this in the interest of business, commerce, money, and fashion pleasure does not mean that we should do this. there are many things in life we can do but we collectively know we should not do. three, that this industry is based on out moded thinking whereupon it is known we have no necessity to treat animals this way and use their very skin for no necessary reason above superficial. alternative nonanimal furs have been developed for those that follow fashion, as you know. and last, number four, as humans, we all can source love and compassion deep inside, whether we have engaged this matter of cruelty in the past or not, we know this approach to animals is wrong, unkind, cruel, and needless. thank you so much for your

consideration on this issue. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name's penny lyin. i'm a fur farrier for 35 years. i came from salina, kansas. this came about two months ago, and it was a big scramble for me. i -- today, i'm the most foremost as a fur service restoring the fur products for the people. a lot of the furs came around northern california. i sell new fur. i use fur, and do restoration,

i cannot miss any portion of this or i'll be out of business. today, the way it is if it looks like this passes, i'll be walking the street, and at my age, i've got nothing left behind. this came a little bankruabrup abrupt. and today, the legislation speaking up on health issues, that all fur pellets that delive delivered to the auction houses, they have to provide certified compliance, and the people behind all this, the hudson bay canada, they have a national retailer here. i'm very saddened to see this. we need a little bit more compromise on the situation. i cannot -- i don't want to walk the street. i have no other means, nothing.

thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. i'll also call john cameron, almira tanner, fleur dawes. >> thank you, supervisors -- excuse me. i spoke before. my name is skip paas. i'm from west coast leather. i'm speaking out against the fur ban. we've been a retailer in san francisco since 1969. the long-standing retail stores in the san francisco deserve a more unbiased, thorough investigation into this proposed ban. the city attorney should rereview the data after such an investigation and block this measure because of the severe economic impact to many retailers and department

stores. the sales which are estimated from the chamber of commerce meeting with over 50 retailers was 40 to $70 million. that is a lot of tax dollars that the city would be missing. retailers rug willing with the amazon economy as it is, the great san francisco is in the top ten shopping destinations in the world, and we need to maintain this status. the legislation will end up costing the city millions of dollars in lost revenue and will certainly increase the number of stores that have to close. we need to keep small business strong, keep our shopping rights and options open. the board of supervisors has lacked over sight to let this go to committee in the first place, with no data supplied to the public or myself with three requests by phone and e-mail to katie tang and her office. the supervisors have a due diligence and responsibility to their citizens which has not

been carried out with impugnity. as minimum, there should be a ballot measure so the citizens of san francisco can decide this issue. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: next speaker. >> hi. my name's john cameron. thank you for this opportunity today to give voice to those who very much need it. to trade money and commerce for the amount of intense cruelty inflicted upon millions of animals for their fur is simply wrong and unnecessary. when you were a kid, you may have seen someone hurting an animal and said to them, stop doing that. what if somebody did that to you? how would it make you feel? this would be hard to do because it's almost unconceivable for us to imagine the amount of suffering these

animals endure from being raised in cages their whole lives, being trapped by your leg or face in a steel trap so someone can violently rip your skip from you while you're most likely still alive. and for what? money? apathy? cruelty? there is no reason, there's no way to humanely kill an animal for their fur. the animals on fur farms are also killed very young. they're merely children. if san franciscans could all see how fur is actually gotten, i'm sure there would be massive outcry, and humanity should simply be better than that. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is dalmira, and i'm here on myself, these activists, and all the hundreds of people who have written letters in support of this fur

ban. people ask, why are we asking for a ban? why not a reform or some welfare improvements, and we are asking for this ban because there is nothing ethical or humane or kind about taking the skin off of someone's body and wearing it as fashion. there was a study done on over a dozen different types of certifications and standards that are calling for so called, you know, humane, and zero of them had any blind audits. only one had any level of transparency, and again zero had any enforcement. judge do we have any evidence that additional standards would do anything else than keep perpetuating this horrible industry. a humane label means nothing to a coyote who is starving to death in a leg trap, to a mink who is literally being c

cannbalized by its cage mates. we can see what can go wrong when money trumps ethics, and while of course we are compassionate and want everyone to do well in this economy, we have to evolve and we have to sta stop looking for the right way to do the wrong thing because the residents of san francisco do not want different laws on how to treat animals while they're skinning them alive. they want a ban on this fur, and that's why i'm here, as well. thank you for your time. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is susan coni conini peranno, and i would like to thank the supervisors, especially katie tang for giving me the opportunity speak on being the world's first major city on banning the sale of fur.

first of all, fur is only natural on the animal that was born with it. right now hollywood and berkeley lead the state on its ban on the sale of all fur in its cities. allergies, cancers, and hormonal imbalances by banning the sale of fur items in san francisco, people will become more aware of the evidence exposed on fur farms as being not only abusive in their treatment of animals, but deadly to the planet that we all live on. many animals are caught in painful traps and suffer for days before they are killed. animals raised on fur ranches are no luckier, since there are no laws to govern how they are treated or killed. millions of animals are raised in tiny cages with no veterinarian care. these animals are killed by strangulation, gassing or genital electrocution, so i

like the shoppers here in san francisco be aware to shop for compassionately and choose fur free fashions. i support the passage of the fur ban. thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is denise bolbil, and i want to say i support this ban. our laws reflect our values, so we pass laws that reflect our values, and san francisco i'm proud to say is often a trail blazer when it talks about setting the standard for what we as a society will accept and what we won't accept. we see communities across the country that don't want to give the lgbt community their full rights, and we see people fighting against all sorts of laws saying the same thing about other businesses will hurt. i can tell you that when you look at circuses that use animals, we heard the same

financial arguments from the circus industry, saying people are going to lose jobs, it's going to hurt the economy, and all of that really came out to be nothing, so i urge you to think about what you're banning here, and it's the object cruelty that these animals are subjected to. there's no need for it. this is a frivolous fashion thing that they're trying to protect, and you will always have people who are profiting, trying to keep the status quo. and i urge you to be open-minded and to look at what san francisco stands for. you led the fight in stopping the use of animals exploited in circuses, and now ringling brothers circuses, however many years it was in business has shutdown because society does not support that cruelty, and society does not support cruelty in the fur industry, and san francisco needs to lead that effort, too.

thank you. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak in public comment, please come forward now. thank you. >> good morning. my name's pat couvia. i live in belmont, but i come to san francisco quite often. i like the museums up here. whenever a regulation is proposed, businesses always cry that the sky is falling, and it never does. businesses go on and on, and regulations are passed every day, and if the criteria why, you know, the businesses complaints, we wouldn't have any regulation. we wouldn't have clean water regulation, we wouldn't have clean air, nothing, but for the animals, the sky is falling every day, and we know that. we know cruel it is to trap them, we know how cruel it is on the fur farms, and something like this, it's so processive, it's so typical san francisco, it's what makes living in the bay area bearable is that we have san francisco here as a light, a beacon when the rest of the country looks like it's going insane, san francisco

shows what sanity looks like. san francisco was the first city to mandate a minimum acreage for elephants at the zoo. and is it and it's a standard today. nobody has matched it, nobody has beat it. san francisco was the first city to ban animals for entertainment, and ringling brothers died out. i support this legislation, and thank you supervisor tang for introducing it, and other supervisors for having this hearing and supporting it. thank you very much. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. and is there anyone interested in speaking for public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: sure. i want to thank everyone for their public comments. you know, i do think it's true that -- that with any due

understanding, world understanding or need for certain products in our society or any technological advancement, there's always change in industry and it's hard. it's a reality of our society and it always will be, and there's growing pains every single time, so i'm sympathetic that this will be harmful to certain business in san francisco, and you know i know that in oewd, there are services that we offer in the city to help change or -- a business and open it up to new markets. but i am very supportive of this lemgs lation and will be proud to vote to move it forward with a positive recommendation today. i think it's the right thing to do. i think the treatment of these animals is obscene and it's wrong, and you know we should be doing our part here in san

francisco to make sure that there's a change in that treatment. in addition, i just -- i just wanted to say that i'm really proud that, you know, there's been a series of pieces of lemgs lati legislation that have come through this committee lately that we're looking more at this -- you know, the human impact of breeding animals for human consumption, whether it's fashion, whether it's eating animals and its impact on the environment? and that's something that is not often talked about. there's so much talk about the impact of fossil fuels, on climate change and the environment, but we know that actual -- actually, agriculture and that industry has a much greater impact, and it's rarely discussed, and so i just want to also note that that's part of this discussion, as well. so thank you for your legislation, supervisor tang, and i'll be happy to be supporting it.

>> supervisor sheehy: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: yeah. thanks. this is complicated, and it's complicated for a number of reasons. and i'm actually thinking a little bit about our collective effort to get the city to divest from fossil fuels in its retirement system because we want to change behavior, and you do that knowing there can be economic impact. and before talking a little bit about mr. egan's report, if we're going to have that kind of systemic change, and we lead it by example, knowing full well that you're going to see an economic shift from brick and mortar retailers to the internet, right, because there's nothing that we can do, nor does this legislation, it's very clear, impact internet sales of fur. so it makes me wonder, and i'm listening to folks like miss flood, who would like to find

some amendments, if there is a way that we can actually impact an industry, i think that we all agree is cruel, whose time has come to reform in a way that we don't have an unintended consequence where okay, we move, whether it's the original hard-to-estimate numbers that ted brought to the last meeting or whether it's the much larger magnitude of economic activity in the realm of if it's true, $40 million. it's hard to really assess that because we don't have the real data in front of us. but what -- what are we really doing that's going to actually change the industry, and are there ways to do that that are more effective than shifting economic behavior from somebody walking into a store downtown to somebody pressing the buttons on this machine? >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: thank you. thank you for those comments, supervisor peskin, and i think,

you know, obviously, we don't want businesses to shutdown in san francisco. but on the other flip side, i would argue that i think it's probl problematic, then i think we have a problem where businesses need to diverse identify their retail, and why is it the huge strain of businesses are dependent on animal retail. we have not rushed this through. we introduced this last year. we went to committee in january , february . i asked for data from the community and only this past week got a high number, saying there was a $40 million impact without seeing the data behind it. i adjusted the time for when this ban would take effect.

i have since then not heard any other suggestions despite any meetings with the business community, and, you know, like i said to you in my private meetings with you, i was open to them, but i hadn't seen any of that. the only thing i got this week which was tagged on with the chamber's letter as well was we should create some sort of a certification program for fur farms, and like i said earlier and like many of the public commenters said much morale quently than i did. that is a global issue and there has since then been no source of enforcement, no actual regulation, whether it's on a national or global level on fur farms, and it's not humane, even if you had one. like i said, i was open to amendments, i haven't seen anything else except adjusting the timeline for which to phase out these products, but i think he we will open up potentially more markets, more clientele to these new retailers if there is a commitment to no longer sell

fur. one thing i wanted to clarify based on thea who came from baby hawk, if you're selling fur, restoring fur that comes into your store, this legislation does not impact that at all. so with that said, colleagues, again, this has been a span of several months, and meeting -- my staff actually, i wanted to thank her. she tried to call as many businesses in san francisco as possible, but i think we're just going to have to disagree on certain elements of this. but at this point, i don't see what other amendments i can make. but i wanted to clarify that in terms of on-line retail, i do know that e commerce is making our brick and mortar stores struggle, and that is not something that we want to see happen, but it is a global problem. this legislation perour city attorney. she has opined that the sales that take place on-line that would actually be delivered to

a san francisco zip code or san francisco in general would actually be impacted by this legislation, so i just wanted to provide that clarification, as well. but i feel that our office has tried to be very thorough about this. again, i was waiting for data from the business community. it shouldn't be the other way around. i'm trying to understand what the true impact is, but i'm not seeing. i just see the $40 million impact overall. colleagues, i don't urge any further delays of this item because we have continued it at least twice now. >> supervisor sheehy: supervisor ronen? >> commissioner renne: thank you. i just wanted to respond to supervisor peskin. first of all, that's great news that any on-line sales that are delivered to a san francisco address will be impacted, and i wonder how that will be enforced. that's really interesting, if you can answer that through the chair. >> supervisor tang: sure. through the chair, we've talked to some of the on-line retailers the bigger ones who

have the ability to say 941 -- whatever the zip code is in san francisco, if they could put kind of a blocker on there. now, every on-line retailer may have a different type of system, but some have said they can comply. some, they don't know. and that's the reality. but perour city attorney who drafted this legislation, their opinion is this would actually cover the on-line sales that would be delivered to san francisco. >> supervisor ronen: that's great. that's really great, but also, i do think we're not the first to do this, but we're the first big city to do this. hollywood is a small city. i forgot the other -- berkeley is a small city. we are a major international worldwide city, and the attention that's drawn from that, the education of consumers that happens from passing a law like this starts to make an impact on the entire country. norway has already banned the manufacturing or breeding of

animals for manufacture for products. i think we're part of a movement that by san francisco taking a stand on this issue is a big deal, and we'll make a difference. so again, just in responding to your comments, supervisor peskin, i think that this is the right piece of legislation at the right time. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. so i would like to do the following. given that today is wednesday, would this go to the full board on monday or would it go -- tuesday -- >> clerk: tuesday, march 20. >> supervisor peskin: so i would like to, if we could, between now and then, maybe offline this flood, and supervisor tang and i can see if there are any adjustments that would be acceptable to the offer between now and next week. and with that, i will defer to my colleague, supervisor ronen, who i think is going to make a motion. >> supervisor sheehy: well, i actually haven't called for a motion yet. thank you, supervisor peskin.

i apologize. >> supervisor peskin: no, no. >> supervisor sheehy: and just frankly state my position. to me, this is a moral and ethical issue. you know, i did the equal benefits ordinance 21 years ago or almost 22, which we had the same arguments. we can't afford it, it will drive-bys out of the city. that bill said that it was a simple matter of fairness, that if you do business with the city, you have to give the same consideration to master planners that you do for spouses. in my mind, raising animals for their skin is not right. it's not moral, it's not ethical, and we are a city that leads, so i'm proud to have supervisor tang as my colleague and taking leadership on this issue, and this is how we change the world. so i will take a motion at this time, so -- sorry.

>> supervisor ronen: i am happy to make a motion to send this item forward with positive recommendation. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you. do we need a roll call? so without objection, we'll move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: that'll be on the board meeting of march 20, tuesday, next week. >> supervisor sheehy: great. thank you. the motion passes, and could we -- oh, sure. and mr. clerk, could we call item number two. >> clerk: agenda item number two is an ordinance amending the park code to treat the rooftop area as a city park for certain purposes, prohibiting smoking on the rooftop park and upholding the planning department's determination under ceqa.

>> supervisor sheehy: so...so are we hearing from supervisor kim's office or going straight to -- the chief security officer with the -- i was just making sure for my transcript, with the transbay joint powers authority, do you have a presentation? >> good afternoon, chair sheehy, i have a presentation, if it could be brought up on the screen, please. >> supervisor sheehy: great, thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. supervisor sheehy, supervisors. i come before you today to request that you recommend the ordinance amending the park code to recognize transbay

rooftop park as a city park for certain purposes, amendmenting the ordinance to prohibit smoking on the rooftop pack and affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa. so tjpa is a joint powers authority made up from different representatives from the city. we have primary jurisdiction over the financing, design, development and construction of the new transit center. we're nearing completion of the new transit center construction threwing a 4.5 acre public park on the rooftop of the center, and the 200 foot elevated linear park will include a variety of amenities including an open amphitheater, dining places, as well as children's play areas. tjpa has four goals for the park. we want to create an exceptional visitor experience

where the park will be a destination where the public comes to enjoy the park during the operating hours seven days a week. the park's waters come from an innovative gray water circulation system. we want to fully active vate the park for the public to enjoy activities and events on the park through the opening hours, and we want to have a safe and secure park filled with people and activities which will full the other three programatic goals. >> most of the parks in san francisco are owned by the city, managed by rec and park and subject to the san francisco municipal code. the municipal code is a well developed body of rules and regulations amicable regulations applicable to city owned parks. since this park is tjpa, municipal management of city

parks do not apply here. so tjpa issue wishes to manage the rooftop park with rules consistent to the municipal code. we request the board of supervisors adopt the planning municipal code to make the rooftop park a park subject to specific rules and regulations while tjpa maintains control and jurisdiction of the park. due to the commonalities between our park and yerba buena's representation for being a well managed park, tjpa has used it as a benchmark. with this legislation, the provisions of the park code that are generally applicable to city parks will apply to the rooftop park. for example, no camping, no removal of flowers and no feeding of animals in parks.

parallel to the municipal code's treatment of yerba buena gardens, a handful of rules would be more tailored. for example, certain activities are prohibited in the park. certain sports will be prohibited. these activities also create an hazard to people on the ground if an item accidently goes over the fence to streets and people below. the gray water system can't properly process the waist of pets. the same prediction is enforced at yerba buena gardens. please note that ocii plans for under ramp park, a 2.5 acre under ramp park that is a pet friendly