and says that, you know, there's covid-wide testing, kind of sounds stupid. they know that that means that there's an outbreak or there are cases. so we hope that we can get behind, get beyond the concerns and really look at what is best to protect those communities and our s.r.o. residents. i look forward to working with d.p.h. in the coming weeks and months, you know, relationship that builds decades back when the s.r.o. collaborative was first funded by the department of public health. so we're looking forward to working together and continue to strength our defense of our s.r.o. residents. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mattias. any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 1? >> yes. two additional callers. i'll unmute the next caller.

>> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> supervisor peskin: yes, i can. please proceed. >> oh. this is trudy. i'm calling from center city collaborative, part of the housing clinic. thank you, supervisor peskin, to extend this legislation for another 90 days or more. one thing i do agree with all the speakers who spoke in front of me -- before me about the emphasis of testing and the outreach. one thing that i definitely felt that is terribly lacking and i'm hoping and willing to work with d.p.h. on it is like the reaching out to the community-based organizations that's already working with

tenants in various buildings. because we bring the relationship, we bring the approach. so i'm hopingle this legislation will push d.p.h. to partner with many of us, so that we can make this legislation effective. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. yes, please go ahead. >> hi. madam clerk, i'm a staff person with chinatown c.d.c. i have a recorded testimony by a witness speaking in cantonese and i will be playing ard roing and then translating. this is a tenant who lives in the chinatown s.r.o. with the present outbreak.

[speaking cantonese]

[caller speaking cantonese]

>> hello, i'm a chinatown s.r.o. tenant. we are among the affected families in the pandemic. recently my husband got the virus. at that time he developed a fever in the evening, after taking the pills and sweating all over his body. the fever got lowered. it was later that we found out that someone had been infected in our building. people in the building were not notified of this virus infection. everyone was kept in the dark and so the virus spread to others. this was frightening because our household included grandparents and children. thank you. madam clerk, i'll be submitting the written translated version of the entire statement for the record. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item?

caller: i would like to thank the last speaker for providing that testimony. and i find it unfortunate that we seem to have so few actual s.r.o. residents speaking today. it seems very paternalistic to have these decisions made by people who, you know, don't actually live in s.r.o.s and, you know, some input from the people who are on various boards and stuff. so i'm wondering like, you know, was -- were s.r.o. residents notified that this meeting was being held? and there aren't any interpreters at the meeting, as far as i can tell. so the residents of s.r.o.s are very linguistically diverse. there should have been more outreach to s.r.o. residents to get their input on these

decisions, instead of the top-down manner. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public who would like to testify under public comment? >> yes, hello. this is theresa with senior disability action. i so appreciate all of your work on this, supervisor peskin. i also hope it will not be diluted. i am also thinking of a resident in an s.r.o. that i visited and the issuing about that he had only recently come home from the hospital, is having an occupational therapist go in to visit him. and so when d.p.h. talks about, you know, people, indeed, do come and go out of s.r.o.s, that may be the difference. however, it is the difference

that makes it even more important for people to be tested. people are going out and working and getting their groceries, et cetera. so they may not know that they have been exposed and they need to know that. they need to protect themselves. and protect the people outside that they may encounter. so i just want to support this. again he is a resident who could not speak today. and so i am speaking for him. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who want to ite itemr 1? >> hi, yes. my name is freddie. i'm with senior disability action as a housing organizer. and -- since covid broke out, i have been doing a lot of work with tenants that live in

s.r.o.s and participating and facilitating several tenant groups and meetings within the community, within s.r.o. working groups and collaboratives. and there is a fear of the emergency protections being through the somehow and i appreciate and i'm glad of the fact that that doesn't appear to be happening. and supportive of these protections that are in place will be re-enacted fully. there is a fear amongst people that live in the s.r.o.s, that i have spoken with, that if they don't know that someone is infected, that they wouldn't be able to adequately protect themselves. so just one person getting it has the potential to affect so many people. just, for example in the building i'm living in, it's not an s.r.o. building. it is partially subsidized.

there was one tenant that was -- that came up positive and the entire building received notices on their doors. and for those that were nervous about being in just the hallways or the elevators, because we don't share public areas, other than the hallways and the lobby, there was several people that were able to get tested, because of that. had they not known and been exposed, there potentially could have been many more cases. so it is important to fully re-enact this and thank you for your support. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. are there any more speakers? >> mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: all right. public comment is closed. and to the speaker -- three speakers ago, let me say there's definitely a difference between dilution and delusion.

every once in a while we get speakers on the land use committee meetings that don't identify themselves and they don't have to. [ please stand by ]

[roll call] . >> you have three ayes. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to send the item as amended with recommendation as a committee report for a meeting with the bull board of supervisors tomorrow september 1. on that motion, madame clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the motion is auto -- approved. madame clerk call the next item. >> clerk:

[reading item] members of the public who wish to comment call 1-415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 146 466 4627 and press #, #and then a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when we get to public comment the system will indicate you have been unmuted. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to continue this to september 14, 2020. is there any public comment on that continuance? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we're check forg callers in the -- checking for callers in the queue. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> commissioner: public comment is closed and on that motion, madame clerk, a roll call,

please. >> clerk: the motion as state. [roll call] .d. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the item is continued to september 14. next item, please. >> clerk: the next is a conversion of certain limited restaurants to restaurants north beach neighborhood amending the planning code. for those wishing to provide public comment call 1-415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 146 466 4627 and press pouve po pound to line up to speak. >> commissioner: this is a carefully crafted piece of legislation that will help up to a dozen defined in the code as

limited restaurants in the corner of the city i represent that really in every way behave like full service restaurants but due to changes in the code that precede me that happened when i was off the board prohibited from applying for beer and wine licenses. and in short, it rendered uncompetitive before the pandemic and now is an imperative for them and these small businesses include outfits like family cafe, which is a chance cafe and the portofino, not the old one the fbi raid 20

years ago but a new one which is a new one on grand avenue. masala which was originally i think in your district, supervisor peskin and may be the only west african restaurant in district 3. essentially, we are addressing a glitch in the code that evolved from complications from not when i was on this board which in fact made small business regulations in some cases murkier and more complicated and in this particular instance pretty goofy. so i really want to thank the planning department staff and the planning commission for their unanimous recommendation of this ordinance and with that,

i do have a series of, i believe, non-substantive amendments. first as to the short and long titles an amendment to clarify we are amending the special use district and on pages 4 and 5, i'm expanding eligibility by reducing the number of months a business must have been in operation from four to three months and page 5, lines 3 and 4 including businesses in operation in the eligibility window that have been in business a longer period of time, between november 1 and september and moving the conditional using requirement for liquor licenses and page 5 lines 11 and 14 moving the

section 3 and removing the line that made supervisor safai happy that is over the counter relief for eligible businesses. this has streamline the process and my thanks to the city attorney and my staff for the work on this and in fact, colleagues, if you have questions or comments i'd be attempt to answer them and if not we can go to public comment. >> it does make me happy and we did something very similar as you know in my district where the change of use was facilitated quickly. the times necessitated this and an appreciate your hard work on this. >> supervisor safai and supervisor preston is nodding his head. madame clerk do we have members

of public who wish to comment on item 3. >> i'll check if there's callers in the queue. arthur, let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not done so press 3 to line up to speak. you only need to do this one. >> commissioner: we'll go to public comment and then aaron starr in planning. >> mr. chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> commissioner: public comment is closed. mr. star. >> planning commission heard this item last thursday and voted unanimously to approve it with modifications those applying and describe a prohibition on [indiscernible] in section of

the ordnance do not place it in a codified ordinance language and the prohibition unlimited restaurants looking at former restaurant spaces and the north beach and north beach sud to allow the conversion of certain number of restaurants and increase the time from three months to six months and the application must be submitted to the planning department by the deadline and do not delete the provision from the code until at least one year after the effective date and to encourage the board to expand this program city wide through an amendment to the legislation ordinance. thank you, supervisor peskin for considering these amendments. i'm also available for questions. >> thank you, mr. starr. >> commissioner: this is an appropriate comment i want to make for myself and you that starting tomorrow we can get our haircut on the sidewalk. >> you don't think i should keep

it? looks great. >> i appreciate that. colleagues, i'd like to move the amendment on that item. madame clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] . >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> commissioner: i'd like to send this item to the full board with recommendation on that motion a roll call -- >> excuse me, if i may. i'm sorry but the amendment is substantive. >> commissioner: never mind. madame clerk, i'll resend --

rescind that and continue it to the meeting september 14. on that motion roll call please. >> clerk: we don't need to rescind but i will take the roll call. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the motion has passed. we are adjourned.