i'll keep it short today. thank you for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> we're front loading with pilates instructors today. thank you for supporting this work by hillary ronen and carolina morales. thank you, you guys, for standing with us. i don't have a whole lot other to contribute than what everyone has already said and what this amazing line of amazing entrepreneurs will say other than we really want to desperately stay in this space. and as of the others said. ten is awesome, but longer would be more awesome. we love being able to share these spaces with our p.d.r.

friends. i thank you so much for your support and for all of your tireless work to this point. it's been quite the experience getting to talk before all of you commissions in the past several months, and we look forward to solving this. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. >> hi. i have stage fright. i'm sharon archuleta. i'm a tattoo artist. i've been there since 1998, and i've been a tattoo artist since 1994. i've worked at lots of shops, and active space allows me to have a safe quiet place for

people who don't like going into a loud, scary street shop. i have a lot of customers who are breast cancer survivors, and it's nice for them to have a safe place to come from. as for the 15 empty units, i think it's a lot more than that. there's five floors, and the second floor has ten empty units, so i can't imagine how many are above. any ways, thank you, thank you so much. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is elizabeth chur, and i am a freelance writer who's been there since 2008. i write grants for san francisco general and ucsf. i only work for nonprofits.

i am grateful, also, that the legislation would allow office uses to stay for three years. however, it's my understanding that people like me would need to go through mandatory discretionary review, which i'm told would cost a minimum of $4500, and the actual service for the case management services is $14,000, which is cost prohibitive for someone like myself. even if we were allowed to stay for the three years, that's an incredible expense for a sole proprietor. i have been looking for other property in the city. the few units on the market, the same eight units are about

twice as large and twice as expensive. i've lived where i work, and coworking spaces are great for startups, but i need a quiet office where i can write without distractions. i would like to ask you to consider waiving the mandatory permitting process or waving the fee for those who provide important services and maintaining a diverse economy in san francisco. thank you very much. chesk chechk tha >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is gene palmer, and thank you for your time. i'm a hair dresser, and i've been doing hair for 30 years, including my time as a barber

in the navy, during the gulf war. i am eternally grateful for this opportunity to have my own business. i serve people of all communities. a majority of my clients are elderly or students and they're also members of the service providing communities, most of whom are on fixed incomes. it is because i'm in an active space that i'm able to keep my rates reasonably low, even by san francisco standards, and if i were substantially force does out, it would have an impact on people who rely on my services based on cost. please allow us to stay in these units for as long as possible. thank you for your time today. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is ramona birchler.

i am an aesthetician, and i've had my space since 2008. when i rented that space in 2008, i was told by active space that this was commercial and mixed use, and there would even be a cafe, so there was no reason for me to believe that i was renting a space that wasn't zoned for me. this zoning issue with active space has created a lot of stress and uncertainty for most if not all of the tenants there. in the past six months, i also have been searching actively for alternative space but everything is a lot larger and comparatively a lot more expensive, even though what i

have is about 300 square feet for $1,850, which i don't think is inexpensive. i would like to kindly ask that you support this initiative and consider the ramifications for all of these small businesses in san francisco. most of us would be forced to close up shop as small business owners, and active space would not be renting to light industrial. as everyone has stated before, there's a very small percentage of light industrial at this point, and there's many vacancies. in the years that i've been there, i've seen a revolving door of tenants come and go, most of which have not been light industrial. so -- and i also wanted to say that as of now, i know that there's a certain amount of square footage that is -- >> chair peskin: thank you.

next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is helen hickman. 20 years ago when i found a space at active space, i was proud that i had the opportunity to establish a solo office with reasonable rent and not have to work twice as hard to make twice as less. i've been practicing 25 years. my objective is to get people out of pain and get their lives back. my clients come to the professional world to athletes moms and even in the nonprofit work. active space works for my client. it's safe, handicapped accessible, and easy to get to on public transportation, and about a third of my clients come from the east bay. our clients not only support

myself but other practitioners in the building, and not it -- not only do we do that, but it also supports small businesses in the neighborhood, as well. as therapists, we're able to consult with one another, and we're able to have a one-stop shop over there. for myself, it's great to have a shop in a place like that, and we are happy to be a part of the colorful and growing mission district. for my professional, to have my office taken away, it's going to be a burden on my clients with a huge rent increase. and as a woman and a small business owner in san francisco, i feel that i am an ambassador to not only the mission but to san francisco, so i urge you to please consider this amnesty so we can

keep our small business community thriving. >> chair peskin: thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is tanya behovsky. i'm a hair dresser and have been at active space since 2008. when i was first there, it was a different neighborhood. now, we have child care, we have two on our block, we have groceries, we have doggie daycare. these people are in the neighborhood with the cafes, seeking out these services. i don't understand why the owner isn't being held responsible for this.

i did what i was supposed to do. this would be a loss to lose this. i wish that we -- ten years is fine, but i'm not really -- don't understand, but i just want to say thank you for li listening to our voices, and i hope you consider the change, and it would be a loss. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. [please stand by].

>> -- i had to move out of san francisco in 2012 when my apartment in the mission burned down, and i couldn't afford to find housing in san francisco. however, i have kept my office in the city because i love providing to this clientele and because there is a huge need. i literally have to turn families away every week and have no other available child therapist in the city to send them to. if i had to leave active space, myself and my two interns, would probably have to close doors because no other location provides a quiet space and to

find that in an affordable way is nearly impossible. i reached out to my community to get some information. the communities that these businesses here serve, as you've heard with primary lgbtq and gender nonconforming, hair on salons, people with auto immune disorders, medi-cal recipients, etc., etc. these businesses in active space are the heart and soul of what it means to be a san franciscan. we are not big businesses. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is david lloyd. i differ today from many of tod today's speakers is that i'm an office tenant. the decision to move my business into san francisco in 2017 was the space was

advertised as a performing arts space. my office space is on the fourth floor. it's 10 by 10 feet, a small sink with only cold water. the room is often hot, and the space has no windair condition and no ventilation other than the window. currently there are eight to ten spaces open on my floor. i question the wisdom of displacing so many existing small businesses with the assumption that these spaces will be filled with p.d.r. uses. currently, no p.d.r. tenants are flocking to the already available spaces. i'd invite the council to visit the location and view the

structures slu structur structures exclusively for p.d.r. use and witness the damage you'll be doing to one set of businesses in an attempt to help another. thank you. >> -- i was also treated as an

independent contractor. an attempt to net more from the service i provide, i've chosen to go into business for myself. i was fortunate to have discovered the active space community in june 2016. it provided me with an affordable, safe, and centrally located space to try my hand at running my own business. i've had a very positive experience and i hope to continue to build my business here in san francisco. i was not aware of my lease restrictions in san francisco and also clearly stated my intended use. i was disappointed to learn that i would not be permitted to continue to operate at active space because of the permitting restrictions. if i'm not permitted to stay i would be losing my livelihood along with any intent to run a

business. if we are forced out of active space, we will leave a hole in the local community we serve and economic contributions we make day-to-day with neighboring businesses. >> chair peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is shawnna astriken. i run two businesses out of active space. a p.d.r. business and a non-p.d.r. business. i also monitor and run a provide facebook page for the tenants of the building and see all the concerns that have been surrounding this. i've been a resident of san francisco and a business owner of san francisco specifically in the mission for over 20 years, and i am very aware of the limited options that we have as small business owners. and i just want to ask that you

vote in our favor and continue to support. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is maureen mcewen and i'm a small business owner in active space. i want to show you guys one of the tools i use. this is called a speech buddy. it can help a child learn how to say the r sound.

it was invented at m.i.t. it is a product of a business at active space. we support each other and our clients, so please let us stay. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is laura clemmens, native san franciscans, and business owner at active space. and i just want to thank supervisor ronen's office for your swift support of us in this really bizarre situation that we found ourselves in. i just want to echo all the speakers before me at what a diversion community, what a thriving -- diverse community, thriving community, active space has been and how devastating it would be not

only to our building but to all the other businesses around there would be. i just want to state -- to highlight, as chair peskin said, the sticky wicket that we're in, that dealing with authorization and permits can be very complicated and confusing, especially when you're a business of one, and so you don't have a lot of time to devote to going to six different offices and waiting in lines and etc. and etc. i was actually permitted by the department of health in 2017 after 1.5 years of -- other long story -- of weird things happening. but i interacted with everyone that i needed to, from the tax asse assessor to the sfpd. with everyone that i interacted with, no one checked that i had

my zoning paperwork signed. if i didn't know, i don't know how anyone else would know if someone didn't tell them. so i hope you can support our organization and we can all be awesome together. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hi. my name is lisa hermann. i'm an expressive arts therapist, and i'm licensed by the california board of behavioral science. i've been in business for about -- a little over 40 years, and i'm a new-ish tenant in active space. i wasn't told there were any problems. i moved in a few months ago. my clientele are people from all walks of life, and i'm one of the few people, few psycho

therapists in san francisco that take insurance. most of my colleagues have stopped. insurance hardly pays anything, it's too complicated. everybody's insurance is something else, even if they have the same carrier. it's horrible. any way, the only way i can stay in business -- i'm a sole provider -- is active space. and i found it on craigslist, went and found somebody else's office. it's charming. it has a sink in every room for washing your paint brushes. unbelievable. any way, i love myspace, i want

myspace, and i'm too old to move. thank you. >> chair peskin: next speaker. >> my name is kathrin rose. i've been working in mental health in san francisco for about 30 years in community mental health and then at ucsf and now in private practice in the active space. i chose that building because in part i live in the mission three blocks away, and i started looking for businesses in the mission area, and there's almost none for psycho therapists. that was true then, and it's true now, so that would present a problem if i need to leave. i, too, was ushered in by the landlord without knowing there was a problem. i'm a licensed practitioner in california. it said art, hobby, business.

my clientele are ordinary people. i see teachers, muni drivers, people that work in nonprofit in the mission, seniors, people on permanent psychiatric disability. most of my people work in the neighborhood or live in the neighborhood, so if i need to get another office across town, it's going to disrupt my clients, so thank you for your consideration. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is sabrina huck. my small business is ritual by design. i'm an artist here in san francisco. i moved here about ten years ago. i love the art and expression of san francisco, and the mission district felt like such a cultural place, and active space works very well for me. as a minority female business owner, i've seen a lot of my

friends who are in a similar situation move away from the city, but i've been very stubborn, and active space allows me to be able to provide the cultural art to my clients. a lot of henna artists within my industry are taking clients at their homes, and there are not many that have a space like mine, and yeah, i don't know if -- if i had to move, it would be difficult for me to stay in the city, so thanks for considering, and thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is evan kaminsky. i'm a gay disabled business owner. i've lived in san francisco for 25 years, and i live in mr. haney's district in a

below-market-rate apartment. i'm an aesthetician, beauty provider. my rent is so low because i've been there so long. if i would have to leave, it would ruin my business. i would have to close up shop, which means i couldn't pay my rent my means leaving the city -- rent which means leaving the city. i appreciate trying to ram this through and the ten years amnesty, but i think ten years isn't enough. i think we should be grandfathered in because we put in the time. if you look up and down the street, all of these apartments and studios that were p.d.r. are all used for offices. we're not the only one.

the entire neighborhood has become offices, and the amount of spaces that people have said, there aren't offices flocking to it. i don't know how you would manufacture a 1,000 square foot thing in a 100 square foot room. i hope we can stay until we want to leave, and then after, if you want to put p.d.r. in, great, but if we have to leave, it would did he haevastate mos. >> chair peskin: thank you. and this is the last speaker, and if there are any other speakers, please lineup on your right. >> hi. i'm one of the few salons in the nation that offers true

p.p.d.-free colors for people with color issues. i have an auto immune disorder which makes it hard to work a regular 8:00 to 5:00 for somebody else. so my disorder makes it hard to work for anybody else. i've worked for other salon spaces, and they are double, if not triple what i pay now because of gentrification. if i close my business, i would no longer have a way to support myself as a disabled person, so this legislation not only affects my business, but it also affects my health and my state of well buildi-being, an of my colleagues are also in

the same boat. i ask the council to please consider voting in favor of this legislation. ten years is great, but if you can see to grandmother us in indefinitely, that would be helpful for many of us. and on that note, i don't see why many of us have to cover the cost of the amnesty, and i ask you to pass the cost on to the landlord not the tenants because we were never made aware of this. >> chair peskin: thank you. and seeing no other public comment, i will close public comment and turn it over to supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: our first choice when drafting this legislation was to gather everyone who is currently at the space in in perpetuity, but that when anyone decided to leave because they want today

go out of business -- they wanted to go out of business or they wanted to grow their company, that once they left from that point forward, the space could only be used for p.d.r., what it's proper zoned for. the city attorney and the planning department says that was not possible. it wasn't legal and it didn't fit with the way we enforce our zoning laws, and so we had to put a time limit on this nonconforming use which is not preferable because i do believe that there is a great need for p.d.r. space. in fact, i've spoken to dozens and dozens of artists where the active space rents are too high for them, and that's why they're not there. that's why they're not in that building sharing that space with you. it's not because they don't want to be with you, it's because they can't afford that.

because there are a lot of personal services in the building, the landlord has gotten away with charging even the rents that you're paying. so it is -- these are connected issues, and we are taking away something for this p.d.r. artists space by grandfathering you all in. but i believe this is the right thing to do because we can't lose 100 to 200 businesses in one fell swoop that depend on this space. we have to act as a city to mitigate that below. but we didn't have a perfect fix for this, and what i tried to do was a very careful balancing act between protecting the businesses as much as i could in these spaces without changing the zoning because i continue to believe that the p.d.r. zoning is the right zoning for the spot and is highly needed in the need.

the issue about the mandatory discretionary review, i wanted to clarify that if all the businesses came together and filed the mandatory discretionary review together, you can do that and split the $3,000 cost, making it much smaller for anyone. and again, that's just for those using this space as office space, not the personal use, etc. so that's one thing to know. and then, the last thing i will say is that we did put a clause in this legislation requiring the landlord to give notice in writing to any new tenant about what uses are allowed at this space so that any tenant are put on notice if there's an improper use. i am concerned that it would appear, at least from the

testimony that i heard today, that the landlord is continuing to rent in active space, spaces that are not active p.d.r. so i think the city attorney was just distracted, jon givner, if you're available, today, we heard in testimony that the landlord continues to be renting active space sites or units to non-p.d.r. businesses, and i'm just wondering if you can explain, to the extent that you can, what the city attorney's office is doing to hold this landlord responsible. he did have to get a notice of special restriction when he got the permission to build this site, and it's very concerning to me that the bad acts continue. so if you could weigh-in on that. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure i can give you

much information on today's meeting, but i will definitely take back that information to the attorneys in my office who are working on this matter and i can report back to your office, if not publicly, at today's committee meeting. >> supervisor ronen: okay. that would be great. and just to be clear, mr. givner is our attorney at the board of supervisors but didn't work on this piece of legislation. that attorney that did work on this piece of lemgislation, we made it crystal clear that we wanted the landlord to be held responsible for this crisis. so with that, i'm happy to take any of my colleague's questions. >> chair peskin: supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor ronen for responding on such an important issue.

this happens all the time in the city. it happens very often where landlords are not necessarily familiar with the zoning and the zoning requirements, and that's when we're called in to help solve the situation. it's happened over and over again in my district on the commercial corridors, no less, where people rent to -- or they're just interested in getting the space rented and collecting rent and not necessarily thinking about the rules in the city, or maybe in the past, they haven't always been followed. but the zoning changes, rules changes, and we have different objectives that we're trying to accomplish. i, too, believe that p.d.r. space is extremely important, particularly when it's been zoned in a very carefully thought out manner. the sad thing is it looks like an entire building was rented out aggressively and continues to be aggressively rented out despite the zoning changes with

the intent to protect that particular use. i've also gotten a lot of calls from people reaching out. many actually own their businesses and live in that location. one of the questions that came out, and i would direfrom the business is many of these businesses are going to have to pay fees for these small businesses, so i'd like some clarification that, and i'd like to under what that's about. >> hi. domenica donovan with the office of small business. my colleague from the planning department might be better able to answer this question, but when personal services, health services, those who don't have to go through the mandatory discretionary review, they'll have to pay for a change of use

fees like any other change of use within the city. do i have that correct, audrey? >> chair peskin: i want to say miss butkus, but miss merlone. >> chair peskin: i'm going to get that. one more meeting, i'll be good. >> so addressing the fees, it's no difference than any business that wants to establish itself in the first place, and they're establishing their use in the first place. so the fees where the planning department is concerned, we is always -- somebody can come in, whether they're trying to be an active business ten years ago, come in originally, or come in today. >> supervisor safai: you're saying two different things. you're saying one is an establishing fee, and one is a change of use fee. so are you saying that some of these businesses that went

through an establishing use are going to have to go through a change of use fee? >> i believe with the exception of three businesses, no establishing fee has been established for this business in the first place. i apologize for using those interchangeably. >> supervisor safai: i understand the planning terminology. i think it's important for the business owners and the public to understand that you're not requiring them to do something now that they've been caught up in this bureaucratic -- this is something that is required but would never happened, is that correct? >> that's the point. the reason the fee is not one set fee is in several of these site visits with department of building inspection, we've noticed that some units have been altered without building permits, so that's why some tenants may find their permit fees higher than others.

but again, this is all standard permit fees. we are not charging anything additional. these would have been applicable from the time they came in originally to establish their permit. >> supervisor safai: i would -- and this is, again, to the sponsor to the district. it feels a little bit like some of this stuff is being done after the fact would never have been noticed or caught had they not been caught -- >> chair peskin: i know there's a question, and i know that supervisor haney's name is on the roster. i would like to associate myself with the comments of the chief legislator of this ordinance, supervisor ronen. i'm a little taken aback by the

commenters who want to change the zoning. this, i think, as i said, is a sticky wicket. let me underscore some of the things that have been said on this panel. this landlord knew what precisely misrepresentations he was making to each and every tenant. the notice of special restrictions that he took title too was abundantly clear. so you got bamboozeled by this guy, and you can get all sorts of permits from the city. that's absolutely true. i wish we could solve it, but you've got a health permit if you've got a certain kind of business, but that doesn't get referred to planning to see if you've got a permit that's the right type of use. but this is the behavior of an unscrupulous landlord who bam

boozeled tenants into units that he could not use. people in the late 90's and early 2000's fought tooth and nail to keep p.d.r. i am going to vote for supervisor ronen's legislation, but don't get over your skis. this is a very rare thing, and i have not looked over any of your leases, but this is landlord is a very smart man. i think that there's language in your leases that says you can't do what you're doing. >> supervisor safai: mr. chair, i agree with everything you said, and this is no way an

intent to impugn any of our city agencies. it's meant to further the conversation about, you know, you have these very small business, they're in a space, they've been misled -- purposely misled in many cases. i guess is there a remedy that we can approach that would ask the landlord to be a part of paying some of the fees or the change of use fees, and i think that would be a little bit more fair. there's often times a negotiation on the types of leases, and i wonder if in this case we asked the landlord who very obviously misled these tenants to take place in these

leases which are obviously going to expire.

>> supervisor ronen: -- that we make sure we're outreaching and help organizing the groups to apply together. what i was going to say in response to you, supervisor safai, is i think we ask our small businesses in san francisco in general to pay too many fees. so what i would say is that we look at a bigger piece of legislation to reduce these fees in general. but this here is unprecedented. i can't tell you what a big deal it is, especially in the mission district at this time to override p.d.r. zoning. i've never done it before, i can't imagine doing it since. i cannot emphasize enough that

the reason that this building isn't filled with activists from the mission screaming from the other side that we shouldn't do this is because of the understanding of the value that you bring to the community, the fact that so many mission residents use your services. the amount of love that you all as small business owners and practitioners have garnered in the mission is why i'm politically able to get this amnesty program passed, but i cannot tell you how extraordinary of an act this is. a decade ago, we never would have been able to pass this, as supervisor peskin was saying, when there was a word over words in the mission. i think -- a war over words in the mission. i am very much committed and

would love to partner with all of you to lower fees for small businesses in the city because they're outrageous and too much. >> chair peskin: before i call on supervisor haney, i do want to say at the last board of supervisors not related to this instance at all, i actually called for a study on every single fee as it relates to small business so that this committee can get them in the right downward direction. supervisor haney -- or supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to finish that. i just wanted to say thank you to -- for that.

i think, again, this is a wonderful step in the right direction. want to appreciate supervisor ronen's hard work sand avoidin a major disagreement where there would be a fight over the same space. >> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: i do want to associate myself with the comments about the behavior of the landlord in this situation and what we're able to do legally. i just want to commend supervisor ronen in this situation. i think it requires a targeted response, and whatever we can

do, by continuing to support these small businesses as we continue to move through this process, we should continue to do. so thank you, supervisor ronen and all the parties, and i think there will be an immediate solution to the issue to allow you to stay. >> chair peskin: supervisor ronen, i think you and your staff found the sweet spot. if there is no objection, we will take your amendments and send the item as a committee report to the board of supervisors for tomorrow's meeting without objection. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, let's see if we can take items four and five together. [agenda item read] [agenda item read].

>> chair peskin: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair peskin. items four and five are two routine acceptances in the ongoing development in mission bay. the developer has completed improvements to the water pump station and park improvements including sidewalk widening. this will allow the city to

formally accept these developments. i do have amendments for number four and five. for five, we are deleting reference to a letter from the p.u.c. that was not part of the packet. this is a nonsubstantive amendment and copies are being based out. on number five, there is a responsibility on park p-2 parking lot. this is a nonsubstantive amendment, and you have copies of those. i believe a representative from public works and from ocii is here to answer any questions. >> chair peskin: mr. nicholas huff, the floor is yours on general public works. >> so the first is part of the infrastructure plan for the mission bay south area.

as you can see, it's infrastructure pumps. the improvements were constructed in accordance with the storm pump stations number five plans and in consultation with the general manager of p.u.c. indicating that the project is completed and ready for its intended use. i have additional photos of where the project is located. it's actually hidden.

it's -- and chase center is in the background for reference. so it's back there. the pump station is located under the concrete paving in the park. the pump station is in an easement in these buildings behind this tree. the city is operating the stormwater pump station under a temporary license from focil until it is accepted by the board. the department of city plans has determined that the construction and the acceptance of the improvements is consistent with the city's general plan, the eight prior policies of planning code section 101.1 and that this does not trigger any further ceqa environmental review. the office of community investment and infrastructure determined that the project is

consistent with the project documents. we request that the land use committee approve and request acceptance by the board of supervisors. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. huff. is there any public comment on items four or five? don't all run up here at once. okay. public comment is closed, [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and supervisor haney has moved the amendments to both items, and we will take that without objection, and we will send both report amendments as committee reports to board of supervisors full board. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: madam clerk, will you please the next item. [agenda item read]

[agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: mr. wong, are you here on behalf of e.c.n. or is somebody here from mohcd? all right. i don't actually even need a presentation on these items. they -- they are part of ongoing work that we are doing relative to the hope sf project at potrero in phase two. they are known to this panel. are there any members of the public who would like to speak on items seven or eight? seeing none, public comment is closed, and deputy city attorney givner, you are not aware of any minor amendments

that are requested on those items. so seeing -- >> clerk: mr. chair, in the resolution, we just need to specify the committee as a whole date. >> chair peskin: and that date would be -- >> clerk: september 9, 2018. >> chair peskin: so in that instrument, we will add said date, and we will take that amendment without objection, and we will send items seven and eight in the due course of bid to the full board without objection. madam clerk, can you please read item ten out of order. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, over time, the abandonment period at section 178 of the planning code and north beach neighborhood

commercial district has notoriously been 18 months and three years. it hassi toggled back and fort over the vacancies over the years. i propose that we return it back to its current 1 wi8 mont and i appreciate president norman yee waiving some of the ordinances so . is there any public comment on item number ten? seeing none, public comment is

closed. and colleagues, if there is no comment or objection, we will send this to the full board as a committee report. madam clerk, we will return to item 2, which we have previously read. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair peskin. thank you for taking us out of order. we had to get -- >> chair peskin: hold on. i have one piece of housekeeping, which is that item number eight, which we amended to have heard by the full board on september 3 should go without recommendation. is that correct, deputy city attorney givner? >> mr. givner: you amended item seven to reference the september 3 date, but item 8 will go without recommendation to item eight. >> chair peskin: i will rescind the vote on item number eight and make a motion to send item eight to the full board without recommendation. that will be the order. [gavel]. >> chair peskin: and now, we will return to item number two. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: you sure?

>> chair peskin: positive. >> supervisor safai: okay. i got it. colleagues, i appreciate you taking the time. through many, many many conversations with stakeholders, particularly business owners and employees and representatives from labor groups and small businesses in the surrounding area, we brought back what we feel is a fair compromise which would now area simply a conditional use authorization. i want to just review some of the small -- some of the reasons why we proposed this initially. there are through our research about 45 of these existing on-site internal cafeterias. they serve thousands and thousands and thousands of employees.

many of them are in the midmarket area. many of them are in the area where our city made a significant investment in those businesses and allowable taxes to encourage those businesses. and if anyone walks that area of our city, it's still an area that's wanting for a ground floor activation in all different types of uses. so our initial approach and our initial thought was the impact that these potential on-site cafeteria has on the surrounding environment, the impacts on those businesses, the rent on those businesses, the impact of all of the above. but what we've come to compromise now on is similar to what you've heard many, many times in this committee from cafes to other small businesses when the impact could potentially change the course of the conversation with the surrounding area. they have to go through a

conditional use authorization. and what that really means is it's more public input, more opportunity for the planning commission and surrounding businesses in that instance to weigh-in and talk about the impacts that they might have. we feel like this is a balanced approach, we feel this is fair, and we feel it addresses many of the concerns that many of the folks had when they brought that to us. i want to thank supervisor peskin. we worked on this supervisor to being on the -- the committee together, so we've had to work on this independently at a distance now that we are the chair and vice chair of this committee, but i want to appreciate the work and time that he put into this working with all the impacted parties. i'm going to highlight some of the amendments that we made today. you have a copy of those in front of you, but essentially, the biggest ones were we