>> this meeting will come to order. this is the april 14, 2021 budget and appropriations

committee meeting. i'm matt haney, the chair of the committee, and i'm joined by president walton and supervisor ronen and mar and we may be joined by supervisor safai. our clerk is miss linda wong and i would like to thank those from sfgov-tv for broadcasting the meeting. madam clerk, any announcements? >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency, the legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, the members will be participating in the meeting remotely. and this precaution is taken pursuant to the local state and orders and declarations and orders. they will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comments will be available on each item on this agenda, channel 26, 78, 89 and they are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two

minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during public comment period available via phone call by calling 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 187 670 9592. and then press pound twice. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, 3, to be added to the speaker line. bet practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television. and you may submit the public comment in a way, and if you submit via email it's forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included as part of the official file. mr. chair, this concludes my announcement. >> supervisor haney: thank you so much, madam clerk. can you call item 1. >> clerk: yes, item number 1,

hearing to receive updates on the city's economic financial conditions and other issues. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 670 9592. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. and a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand and wait until you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. >> chair haney: thank you so much. and we have a presentation on the federal stimulus and we had planned on hearing from the mayor's budget office on the five-year plan update but we will be hearing that next week instead since there is an accompanying resolution that will need to be heard on the same day. miss alerzma. >> thank you, supervisor haney.

michelle alerzma from the analysis division. i will share my screen and get started. so on today's agenda, we just have a presentation about an update on stimulus packages approved and what they mean for san francisco. and i will mention that my focus today is really on the american rescue plan act, which was signed into law by president biden on march 12th of this year. as you are likely aware, there is also a stimulus package approved on december 27th, of 2020. that was the consolidated appropriations act or h.r.133, which had provisions that will affect the city. and since this time, the president biden has proposed his

american jobs plan which is largely infrastructure, exceeding $2 billion, and congress is currently in session and discussing the american jobs plan this week. so for today we will focus mostly on the american rescue plan act, or arpa as we're coming to call it. at $1.9 billion, this is a -- the scope of the bill is vast, and it has many, many components. which i have listed the largest ones here. so this round of stimulus spending continues many of the components that were first approved in early 2020, including in the cares act, extended in december. and they are now being continued with arpa. including the direct stimulus to people etc.

and this bill includes funding for fema to reimburse the local government for eligible expenses. i'm going to spend most of my time today talking about this last point on the slide here, which is the state and local fiscal aid. in many ways this is a continuation of and a building upon the coronavirus relief fund provided in the cares act about one year ago. within this $350 billion, there are two components. slightly under $200 billion is going directly to states and $130 billion is designated for the coronavirus local forward recovery fund, a portion between cities and counties. and the white house has already published the amounts, the

allocations to entitlement jurisdictions, which receive funding. and san francisco's allocation is currently estimated at $636 million. just within the coronavirus local fiscal recovery fund. i wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the eligible uses of the coronavirus, both state and local recovery funds and this is taken from the bill itself. and there is i think that we're going to be spending many months parsing what each of these things means and looking to treasury for guidance on it. the first item here of the four eligible uses, this is largely a continuation of what the coronavirus relief fund paid for. it's to respond to the public health emergency and its negative economic impact. the second eligible use is

essentially premium pay for government workers performing essential duties, or determined by the local government executives. the third item, item c here, this is really the game changer, i guess i would say, the thing that was not part of the cares act and what the local governments lobbied very, very hard for because it means more to us than many things. this is essentially revenue backfilled, revenue replacement we can document our revenue losses. and the last eligible use is to make improvement in water or sewer or broadband infrastructure. this is hard to figure out to what degree the government would use them for these purposes because of the restrictions on

them, which i'll talk about in just a second. and so the restrictions on these state and local fiscal recovery funds. they may not be used to directly or indirectly to offer tax cuts or related to tax increases. we are not allowed to deposit any funds into a pension fund with the idea being that member of congress do not want to see bailing out on pension funds. and timing -- the funds must be spent by december 31st, 2024. and the distribution of the funds, 50% must be distributed upon certification of the local government executives, within 60 days of enactment so that's may 11. and the second 50% within 12 months of that time. and states will receive 100% of

allocation on may 11st, because the local governments will have two (indiscernible). and hard to emphasize enough how, how much we have to learn in the absence of the federal guidance that is not yet available. we can take heart from the fact that the federal government, and the white house and the treasury are learning from the cares act implementation and taking steps to avoid a repeat of that in which and the coronavirus relief funds were slow because of a lack of clarity from the treasury about allowable uses and that the guidance was really piecemeal, over time, revised, conflicted with itself sometimes and made it very, very tough on

recipients and so i think that there's a lot of hope that this should be better. at any rate the white house and the treasury have reached out to many state and local government affinity groups like the government finance officers or gfoa, related cities and the national association of counties and groups of elected officials, to have questions they have, and consolidate them and provide a consolidated guidance in early may is what we were hearing. and it would be about certification, eligibility and reporting. and the -- in the city they have been participating in discussions with our peer government agencies, and gfal calls, and also with our monitors. the treasury has announced they're establishing a new office of recovery program. so we would have the implementation of all of the stimulus programs to date, including the cares act, and the

consolidated appropriation from december and erpa. and so we're looking for a better rollout than last year. and that said, the number of questions that all of us, that the local government have, is long and vast. and in particular i think that my previous slide, i highlighted the eligible use with the third one on the list for revenue reductions. and this is the area where we have the most questions. and, for example, how do you measure a revenue shortfall what is that compared to? can you recover -- can you use these funds to recover revenue loss in a prior fiscal year? and is it on a line item basis? and many jurisdictions, including san francisco, san

francisco harder hit than most, 90% of our hotel tax revenue. but that is a pattern that you will see in other jurisdictions as well. so is it revenue losses or can you kind of pick and choose line items? one of the additions was on the pension fund. as you know, just part of our regular payroll is the employer's contribution to the retirement plan in san francisco. so the typical payroll costs that the city would recover, that the city is recovering and using coronavirus relief funds for. so do we have to take those -- if we're going to apply to use these funds for our personnel costs, do we have to take out and have pension contribution amounts which are substantial? and then there are many, many streams of funding for grant

programs that will not flow through the city and they'll flow through state agencies or through other federal agencies like the c.d.c. and n.i.h. and other federal organizations. and we don't yet know kind of the funds from those and how they'll be distributed. so many open questions. we are working with our lobbyists and our office is working with the mayor's office and the departments to comb through the legislation and to understand what it means for us and to put a number on that. and some of this is easier to identify some portions than others. so for erpa, it's $30 million approximately to the m.t.a. and $192 million to the airport and

those entities also received in cares and the budget reconciliation act. so it's kind of a continuation of those programs. and sfusd $112 million and the college district just under $29 million and under $20 million for housing programs. and those are the things that we can kind of put a number to at this point. there's a lot of funding for health activities and that is t.b.d., what our estimate is for local revenue for our department of public health. we just don't have the guidance to determine that yet. just to mention though, h.r. #13 from december also provided funds to the m.t.a., the airport, the school districts, emergency rental assistance program which we have seen to

extend the ordinance for. $28 million to the p.h. for vaccine administration very specifically, and some other provisions in there with small amounts that we have been able to estimate. one of the most important provisions within h.r.133 was an extension on the use of cares c.r.f. funding set to expire, and it was extended to 12-31-2021. there are many numbers that we're trying to get a better estimate on. as i mentioned before, a lot of these are going to be pass throughs, and through other federal agencies directly to us or through social services or health services, including

tests, contact tracing. there is funding for mental health and substance abuse. so we don't yet know how the state will pass those down to counties. there are additional funds for homelessness services, small businesses, road maintenance and the list goes on. but those are the most pertinent to local governments like ours. >> chair haney: can i have a clarifying question on that? you put in there earlier how much of the funds that the state is expected to get and i don't know if you could either go back to that or remind me of that. but is -- is the number that you noticed for the state inclusive of all of those things? in that the state -- so the state is -- it will get -- i'm a little confused by what this says here. how much is going to the state of california? >> so in terms of these kind of

more discretionary funds, the state of california will get its share of this $195 billion coronavirus state fiscal recovery fund. i don't know the state's amount of that. but i can find out. >> chair haney: and then -- and then all of the other things that could potentially come to the city and county of san francisco through grants or whatnot, is that part of the state fiscal recovery fund, or is that in addition to? i am trying to understand how to get to a better estimate of how many funds -- how much we're likely to get in funds. it seems that there's a very significant potential number that is not accounted for in the $634 billion here, that could come to us via the state or via other passthroughs and i'm --

it's hard for me to have any sort of understanding or estimate of what that will be. >> no, no, i understand your question, and it's exactly the right question to ask. the first point, the coronavirus state recovery fund, the pass through programs that we might benefit from are in addition to that. >> chair haney: got it. >> yeah. >> chair haney: and what do we know so far, if anything, about how the state plans to spend their sort of general allotment? have they made any announcements? is there any knowledge of that? >> no, i don't know of anything you'll recall that last year the state passed through a portion of its kind of, you know, its flexibility relief funding to local governments within

california. and the city received just under $21 million, like, as a pass through. and i haven't heard that they're doing anything similar with their funds this $195 billion for the state recovery funds. i think that we can -- i think that the governors may revise and they'll indicate what the governor plans to do with those funds. and i think that just to emphasize, again, there's very little guidance on the use -- the most important use of these funds, i think, which is the revenue replacement until we know more about how they're going to work. it's going to make it hard to plan. but the short answer is, no, we haven't heard yet that california will do, if we'll pass through. >> chair haney: okay.

and on the -- on the other potential pass throughs from the state, is there anymore numbers or, you know, estimates or, you know, there are a bunch of different buckets there that were pass throughs that are certainly very large parts of our spending. are those grant programs? how large are they? are there any other information? it seems like a huge unknown here is the many probably, you know, billions and billions of dollars going to state both directly and in pass throughs that we don't know yet at all how we will be able to access. >> i think that is right. we don't know -- we can -- i could come back with kind of like a chart of everything that's in there and what the

state is going to get that they might pass through. we could look for that. i know that the departments have been kind of reading through the provisions of the language so far. most importantly, i have been working with the folks at the department of public health and there's just not enough information available yet to understand how we might be benefitting from some of those pass throughs. >> chair haney: okay. i'm sorry if i missed this, what is a.i.r.? >> airport. pardon. >> chair haney: okay. all right. sorry, i don't know if you were on your last slide or -- yeah, this should be really be helpful on that last one to know what, you know, i mean -- if it's potentially that we could access hundreds of millions of dollars for homelessness, that's as big a deal as anything that we're talking about here. >> yes, and my guess is that it

would not be that large, but we'll certainly share information as it becomes available to us. >> chair haney: do we know the total amount that was allocated for homelessness in the -- in the recovery act itself? >> i don't know if it's organized that way, but i could certainly look for it. and to see what kind of overview i could bring back to you. or provide after the meeting. >> chair haney: okay. >> so i had mentioned that we're participating gsra discussions with our peers about the uses of the funds. and this is really our main kind of peer organization. and it has issued guiding

principles on the uses of arpa funds which i will share with you. one is that -- i think we hear this frequently from the controller who gives me the advice of being careful with one-time funds, spending them on one-time purposes. and this is recommended as well this is a non-recurring source. it goes away. and so the advice is to apply it to non-occurring expenditures and to avoid creating new programs that require ongoing funding, because it is only one time in nature. and gfoa recommends to use it to rebuild reserves and just keeping in mind that using these to bridge an operating deficit is a temporary solution. and the more from gfoa about how to use the funds -- you

obviously need to prioritize and use them for things that can't get paid for another way. and the second point that i think that is also important is that there's many, many jurisdictions that are not part of the city but we work with them, obviously, the transportation agencies and the development authorities, etc. but they'll be receiving their own portions of arpa funding. so understanding and coordinating with them so there's efficient use of funds across agencies is highly recommended. there are many streams of funding, for many types of agencies. and to spread the use of the funds over the qualifying period which is the city or the county as a stabilizing force and they do remind us that our agencies will opine on our use of arpa fund and their credited

opinions. and i'll just end with the note that it's a very -- it's historic one-time funding to cover operating shortfalls until our economic conditions locally and our operations locally (indiscernible) that's all i have in terms of slides and i'm happy to take other questions. >> chair haney: thank you. i appreciate it. i saw a couple folks on the waiting to speak. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you, chair. can you go back to a couple screens back, the one that talks about the money being divided up? chair haney was asking a few questions and i had a couple questions myself. one was about $28.5 million to

san francisco community college are they aware that they're getting that money? and have you had any conversations about them in terms of impacting their -- they have a significant budget shortfall. can you talk about that a little bit? that's my first question. >> i have not spoken with them yet. we work with them, of course, on many things, but we have not talked to them yet about arpa allocations. >> supervisor safai: so, are they aware that this money is coming? >> i would think that through their own organizations and the state chancellor's office that this information is getting pushed out. but i haven't directly discussed it with them. i'm not sure that anyone in the mayor's office has been in discussions with them. >> supervisor safai: okay. and so i'm clear the arpa is the $1.9 billion, that president biden, h.r.133, when speaker

pelosi and that was the first round, is that right? >> h.r.133 was approved by president donald trump in december. >> supervisor safai: so that was the first round of stimulus? >> there were a couple rounds before then in march 2020. >> supervisor safai: so we've had three? >> at least three. there have been more pieces of federal legislation that are called stimulus but not government money. >> supervisor safai: okay. i guess that my biggest one was -- and then same thing with the were having a lot of conversations at sfmta and they knew, obviously, they knew about the $230 million. they were projecting up to $400 million in the arpa. is that a final number? >> this is -- no, this is not a

final number. i wouldn't -- i don't think that it's impossible that -- if they're telling that you it's $400 million, i think that i would -- >> supervisor safai: well, they were predicting that it would be $400 million. i mean that impacted the amount of debt they ultimately came to this committee and asked to take on. we have a lot of debate about that. but i'm just curious if that was a final number or not. >> no, this is not final. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. thank you, chair. >> chair haney: president walton. >> president walton: thank you so much, chair haney. thank you so much for the presentation. i just have one question for -- more for clarification. because i believe that you said that the funds must be spent by 2024. but i thought that i heard that we need to distribute 50% by may

11th and 50% within that next 12 months? did i miss something? >> oh, my apologies. that's the schedule upon which the u.s. treasury needs to distribute to local governments, to us. >> president walton: got it. thank you. >> chair haney: president walton, are you -- >> president walton: that was it, thank you, chair. >> chair haney: supervisor mar? >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair haney. and i had a couple questions, and thank you for the update about the significant new funds coming in. just on the other funds list, that one of them was under arpa for $19 million for housing programs. so is that coming to the city for housing programs on top of the $600 million?

>> yes, that's in addition to. >> supervisor mar: yeah. and are there -- are there any guidelines or -- for the $19 million for housing programs? >> not that i'm aware of, not yet. i think that it's going to take -- it's going to take some time to get guidelines on all of these. and the treasury at this moment has set up an office to try to deal with it. and their focus right now is just getting the funds out to the -- the stimulus funds to government, and distributed by may 11st. that's their first order of business. and then guidance probably on a lot of detailed programs. >> supervisor mar: um-hmm. great. and maybe it's not so much a question but just wanted to make a point on one of the guiding principles that you had shared

about coordinating with other -- other arpa recipients to ensure that the funds that we're getting and they're getting are coordinated in the best possible way. so i think that -- yeah, i think that is very important, especially looking at the school district and city college, for example, receiving some direct relief funds. and then, you know, we at the board and as a city, have been, you know, doing what we can to support the school district and city college. so i do think that we need to make sure that we're coordinating with them and the other agencies too. and supervisor safai, yes, city college is aware of the additional relief funds they're getting. i think that they were -- in my conversations with them, they also are viewing these as obviously one-time sort of

funds. so it might limit their ability to use it to address the sort of structural deficit that they're facing. >> supervisor safai: i knew that you would know. >> supervisor mar: great. thank you, chair haney. >> chair haney: thank you. thank you for those questions. so, yeah, one more question. it would be helpful as i said to come back and to see the breakdown from the state funds. i think that is something that, you know, that it would be very significant for us if there's a significant funds that we can access in addition to the unrestricted funds. and i did have a question for miss rossemburger if she's here from the mayor's budget office? is she here? >> i don't think so. >> i'm here.

>> chair haney: oh, great. >> chair haney: thank you. sorry to put you on the spot here. i did want to ask -- it does seem that -- and i know that we'll hear the five-year financial report next week. it does seem that the mayor's office at least in terms of the interpretation of how the unrestricted funds to the city and county could be used, that it does seem that y'all have interpreted that broadly and in the sense that we're now projecting it to close the two-year deficit that we had projected. and it does seem that there's still some significant outstanding questions around how those funds can be used and how

we interpret revenue loss and the extent of the revenue loss and is it net revenue loss. so i wonder if there's anything that we might be able to share and maybe you could share in greater detail next week as to how you all have reached the conclusion or the projection that these funds can be used in the particular way that are outlined in the five-year projection, seeing that it seems that there's still some significant outstanding questions on how those funds can be used. >> yeah, it's a great question, chair haney. thanks. as you know, the five-year plan is put together by not only the mayor's budget office but also the controller's office and the budget legislative analyst, so the three offices and in making that assumption are really looking it's that provision in arpa that allows us to use the local aid funds for revenue

loss. so the three offices have agreed on that assumption to kind of plug that one-time source into our revenue and expenditure projections in the five years. so, yes, you know, there is some outstanding clarification that we're awaiting, but based on what we know and we have seen in the guidance for that stimulus bill, the three offices are agreeing to incorporate that into our five-year projection. >> chair haney: okay. got it. i may have more questions about that next week when we talk about the five-year projection and sort of how specifically we're looking at this. i appreciate it. i don't see any other questions or comments from colleagues. can we go to public comment on

this item, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair. and checking to see if there's callers in the queue. those who wish to provide public comment, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. are there any callers in the queue for this item? >> we have three callers in the queue, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you. please unmute the first caller. welcome, caller. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? hi, i'm gaib gothman, i'm a constituent in district 2. as a renter, i'm urging you to put $136 million of the $634 million of this money into a fund for equitable climate change mitigation and

resilience. you know, that it is intended to help us to build back better, and climate is not a niche issue. our health as you can see with the wildfires last year and the big burst of wildfires in the future and this year, you know, it's really affecting all of us and we can use this money to, you know, to do pilot programs and electricification in communities and looking for resilience and also things with job training and other things that, you know, san francisco really becomes a hub for resiliency and maybe even long-term looking at, you know, ending our dependency on fossil fuels by removing gas from existing infrastructure. in passing this s.f. climate emergency declaration, the board of supervisors committed to prioritizing the needs and going to low-income communities of color and those hit first by the climate crisis.

so i urge you to have the $136 million as a small down payment to addressing this existential threat that our society and our children face when it comes to climate change. so, please invest a sizeable amount of this covid-19 recovery act funds on the climate crisis thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. (indiscernible). >> clerk: hello, caller? hello? >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can barely hear you. if you could speak louder, we would appreciate it.

>> caller: (indiscernible). >> clerk: hello, caller? i'm sorry, caller, we cannot hear you. mr. peretto, perhaps we could circle back to the caller and take the next, thank you. >> caller: hi, supervisor, i'm chris a resident of district 3. i thank chair haney for his inclusive approach on this year's budget and fighting corruption. i want you to invest at least 1% of the city's total budget towards equitable climate change mitigation and resilience programs. currently the city only spends a few million a year on global warming reduction efforts that shows a relative lack of progress. in passing the declaration we all prioritize the needs to go to low-income communities hit

first and worst by the climate crisis. it's a once in a generation opportunity to make a down payment on environmental justice. and we need to have more housing units and expand public transportation and expand bike and microability infrastructure and so please invest a sizeable amount of the funds to the climate crisis. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me now? i have called back. hello? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> caller: okay, hi. my name is alayna angle and i live in district 9 and i think that the other two callers did a better job of speaking about this. but i'll do the same. i understand that you need to get clarity on how this money is mandated to be spent. and i want to make the point that as you go through the permitted uses of this money,

you keep in mind as a highest priority that we must build a fossil-free economy and we must do it quickly. two years ago the city declared a climate emergency. now act on it. the department of the environment has just updated the city's climate action plan. the department is not properly funded by any stretch of the imagination. we're asking that as you allot these funds, you find a way of allocating 1% of the city's budget to be earmarked for climate action. if we don't use these funds now, we've lost a significant funding opportunity and the little precious time that we have. so i ask you to keep that foremost in your mind as you start to allocate these funds. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your

comments. as a reminder, if you wish to provide public comment on this item please press star, 3, now to be added to the queue. next caller, please. welcome, caller. >> they have disconnected. i can put on the next one. >> clerk: hello, caller? >> caller: hi, my name is jennifer fang and i'm a constituent in district 3. like as previous callers i am here to urge you to put $136 million of the $634 million of stimulus money into a fund for equitable climate change and mitigation and resilience. i'm an ecoresearcher and i'm terrified of the prospect of a darker world than the one that

we live in now. and that's why i'm joining my friends and calling for a stimulus money to fight for a kinder future. climate touches every part of our lives and there's ways to use those funds. here are just a few. one of the things that we need to address is -- one of the first things to address is sea level rise, particularly in areas like bayview and hunter's point and treasure island, and poisoned by a legacy of environmental injustice. i think that it's egregious that citizens have to raise funds through gofundme to monitor in the case of treasure island. that needs to be addressed like yesterday. and another excellent use of funds would be to expand bus and other transit infrastructure and to make public transit free. a local green new deal can begin with reinvesting in transit. many transit riders and workers are working-class people of

color, so investing in transit would support frontline communities while reducing emissions. and, third, i think that we need to invest in a pilot community safety programs as alternatives to police. that could be resources to research and pilot transformative justice programs, unarmed mediation and intervention teams, and trauma centers. we also need to invest in rehabilitation programs and social housing and generous childcare to make sure that people's needs are met. to have green jobs to actually take care of our community, as a reminder that climate justice is racial justice. and so please invest the sizeable amount of the funds in the climate crisis, thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes.

>> caller: my name is sarah greenwald and i'm a constituent of district 2. i would like to urge you to put about 1% of the city budget into funds for equitable climate change mitigation and resistance. this is terribly important. climate change is just not going to stop because we have other emergencies. although, you know, i do fully appreciate the importance of the emergencies. and, therefore, to help to address some of this, i recommend funds for a climate equity fund to have workforce training and community outreach and education and such to support equitable electrification in san francisco. when you passed the s.f. climate emergency declaration i was so proud because united states you prioritizedthis.

for those hit first and worst by the climate crisis. so, again, i hope that you will put 1% of the overall city budget into climate change mitigation and resilience. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next caller, please. >> caller: hi, my name is heidi peterson and i'm a d5 resident. i wanted to say that i really (indiscernible) and dealing with climate change and prevention. also (indiscernible) to other ways of supporting public

transit programs, like electricification and i currently live in a rent-controlled unit and it's great, it's wonderful. i'm very glad to have rent control. while it also (indiscernible) and i would love to be able to rein in corruption. (indiscernible) and investing -- i would really appreciate if we have a lot of expanded transit and public (indiscernible) and reduce climate change. (indiscernible) that means transit that is (indiscernible) 1% is really

small from that perspective. especially considering how much of it is really spent for climate change. (indiscernible) if we do not act quickly. it's the responsibility of the city to show how these things can work to the rest of the world. you have companies that take in money from the rest of the world and they need to be giving back and that can be (indiscernible) technique. thank you for all of your work on this. thank you again. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> madam clerk, there are no more callers in the queue at this time. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair haney: public comment

is now closed. thank you to the members of the public who called in and for raising the important issue of climate resilience and global warming. please do reach out to me and my office and we'd be very happy to meet with y'all about that. colleagues, are there any other questions or comments? i know that we were going to -- to have a continuation of some aspects of this discussion next week when we hear the five-year projection or the forecast. but i don't see any other questions or comments from the colleagues. any other -- any other final things that you wanted to add? >> i would only add that the proposed american jobs plan is really for infrastructure and it does focus heavily on the environmental justice, climate change and infrastructure.

>> chair haney: thank you. all right, well, i am going to make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. is there a second? >> second, safai. >> chair haney:madam chair, roll call vote. >> clerk: on that motion [roll call vote] there are five ayes. >> chair haney: thank you so much, madam clerk. are there any other items in front of us today? >> clerk: there are no other items. >> chair haney: great, thank you so much, colleagues. this meeting is adjourned.

>> hi. i'm chris mathers with channel 19, and you're watching coping with covid-19. today, i'm going to be talking about exercising during the pandemic. first, i'm going to tell you what i've been doing, and then i'm going to be checking in with some friends and family.

i've been riding my bike. all i take is a pair of gloves and a mask if i come into contact with anyone. i try to ride my bike during the time i'm sheltering in place. i try to ride for at least 30 minutes. surfing is my other regular outdoor activity. california state guidelines recommend you don't drive more than ten minutes for a spot to exercise, and although i'm close to ocean beach, i'm a bit wary to go there, so i'm using the time to do some maintenance. filling in gouges and dings,

and sanding it down. i'm also repairing holes in my suit. fellow sfgovtv producer chris took his first yoga lesson a couple of years ago and used to go to a class regularly before the lockdown. he and his wife set up a space in their garage for exercising. this routine is from an on-line class by power yoga. deann and andy have been using the ping pong table that they bought off craigslist and set it up in their back yard. ellie has been using this home gym to stay fit. it has everything she needed. and lastly, if the weather is bad outside, you can exercise

your mind by doing a puzzle, sudoku, or just by reading a good book. here's a quick recap. since i started this episode, the guidelines have changed. for instance, jack may be able to go golfing with some restrictions. go to sf.gov to get the most up-to-date

>> we love our parks, but we love... >> and the community who is

really the core of it all, came together and said what we need is a place for our teenager to play, not just play grounds for the kids and soccer fields but we need a skate park that will keep the kids home in the neighborhood so they can play where they live. >> the children in the neighborhood and it will be a major boone. and we have generations, the youth generations that will be able to use this park in different places. >> the best park in san francisco right here. >> creating place where people can be active and lead, active, healthy life styles that are going to just stay with them for life. ♪♪

>> all right. sfgov tv, we are ready to start the meeting. this is a regular meeting of the small business commission held on april 12th, 2021. the meeting is being called to order at 4:32 p.m. the small business commission thanks media services and sfgov tv for televising the meeting which can be viewed on sfgov tv 2 or live streamed at sfgovtv.org.

excuse me. i'm trying to be clever and i am not -- okay. so members of the public can call in using the number (415) 655-0001 for public comment. use the access code 187 665 5033. press pound and then pound again and you will be added to the public comment line. when connected, you will hear meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in the listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to be added to the speakers line.

if you dial star 3 before public comment is called, you'll be added to the queue. when you're called for public comment, please mute the device that you are listening to the meeting on and when it is your time to speak, you'll be prompted to do so. best practices are to call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and, again, turn down the device you're listening to the meeting on. public comment during the meeting is limited to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise established by the presiding officer of the meeting. an alarm will sound once the time has finished. speakers are requested but not required to state their name. sfgov tv, please show the office of small business slide. >> today we will begin with a reminder that the small business public forum policies that affect the economic

vitality of small businesses in san francisco. the office of small business is the best place to get answers about doing business in san francisco during the local emergency. if you need assistance with small business matters particularly at this time, you can find us online or via telephone and, as always, our services are free of charge. before item number one is called, i'd like to start by thanking media services and sfgov tv for coordinating the live stream. please call item number one. >> director: item number one call to order and roll call. [roll call]

mr. president, you have quorum. >> president laguana: wonderful. commissioners at the request for item number two, we are exchanging items number two and number three. they'll be taken out of order. we're going to hear item number three first. can you please call item number three. >> director: item number 3 is the presentation on the san francisco music and entertainment venue recovery fund. this is a report on the status of the implementation of the san francisco music and entertainment recovery fund. this is a discussion item and the presenter is richard kurylo of the legacy business program. and, richard, i have to pass the ball to you. and there you go. >> thank you. awesome. >> president laguana: thank

you, rick for presenting. it's been really fun working with you on this and your advocacy of all our entertainment businesses has been noted and appreciated. i know the office has been working very hard. this turned out to be a much bigger job than i certainly expected or anticipated. you probably knew all along it was going to be this big. i had no idea. so looking forward to getting a briefing. >> thank you, president laguana and vice president zouzounis and city staff guests. i'm richard carillo and i have a presentation for you on the san francisco entertainment venue recovery fund. are you able to see that? >> uh-huh. >> great. let's see if it works. okay. here we go. >> president laguana: yep. you're good.

>> perfect. so the intent of i called venue fund is to provide grants to music and entertainment venues negatively impacted by covid-19. sponsored by supervisor haney and five other supervisors and established by ordinance number 2221 which took effect march 5th this year, 2021. being funded by a $3 million allocation from the general appropriation fund. on april 6th, 2021. the office of small business and the legislation is to administer the venue fund and adoptables for distribution of grants in consultation with the controller's office. o.e.w.d. and the entertainment commission. office of small business can consult with the city agencies as well as business organizations representing the interests of that news.

we decided to take hold of that engagement with independent venue lines and sf venue coalition and all the departments that were mentioned in the first bullet points. actions to date. we've created a website on o.s.b.'s website. i have some information there. we created draft rules currently being reviewed by the city attorney's office. we created a grant web page and our grant application form. we began by accepting donations by check to the forum. all of that is on o.s.b.'s web page. and we've investigated payment methods to eligible venues, grantees may need to get

established as city suppliers which are then also called vendors and we're currently working on that and there's a lot more here that we've done but this is just a few bullet points. so just to go over the legislation, eligible venues that meet all of the following criteria. the principle number one to provide live and entertainment programming. define performance and audience. sound and lighting systems, and marketing of specific performers by name. communications on social media. let's see here. sorry. my computer's frozen. number two, held a place of entertainment permit february 25th, 2020. and 3, committed to funding to

provide live entertainment programming. and four, not owned by any company whose shares are publicly traded on the stock exchange. and number five, the business owner must declare penalty of perjury. unsecured property taxes by liability or insurance or utility costs. b, businesses struggling to pay these expenses due to covid-nineteen and, three, the business maintains a lease and will continue for a live venue. based on that, the required documents are going to include floor plans, photographs, and audience bases, photographs documents showing sound and lighting equipment. one month of marketing materials defined as 16 days of the month. or open to the public if it's not open 16 day ace month. and box office ticketing, performance, other documents

demonstrating commitment to maintaining the venue as live entertainment programming. furthermore, we have priorities. o.s.b. shall give priority that meet two or more of the following criteria funding. that reach eligible venues. number one, imminent danger of closing and the documentation to that. legacy business maximum occupancy is less than a 1,000 patrons and number five, has some historical importance to and again, they can submit documentation for that. so what we came up with as a group is that we're going to pay all eligible venues at least for the first round, but all eligible venues and then process those by priority. so, in this first round, we'll

pay eligible venues the same amount in each round of the grant. that may change. we might do something different in the second round, but for now, it's looking like the first round it's going to be something like this and additional rounds as well. we may conduct possible second and third rounds. we will process the application in order of priority for the five main categories. out of five additional criteria, they'd be priority one and four of five, three of five and two of five. and priority five would be an eligible venue. target timeline, so april 19th, we are going to be announcing that we're going to be going live on the 21st. the application will be live and we'll have that on sfgov

website and we'll also have links to it from o.s.b.'s website on the entertainment commission and that's the date the $3 million funds are expected to be transferred into the account. in may and june, so the application will close after two weeks on the 5th of may. we expect to be processing applications the day after it goes live on april 22nd all the way through june, probably early june and then we put in the application that we'll inform applicants of that application status and grant award by the 26th. hopefully. we have to review all the applicants and figure out how much they're going to get. hopefully we'll be able to do that in three weeks. right now, it's just me. i'm putting this out there. any time i talk about this.

ideally, three review assistance at 25 hours each. someone to start on the 26th of april going through may twenty-sixth and two assistants each working 25 hours from may 6th to may 26th. that's what i'm putting out there in the world and hopefully someone responds. >> president laguana: can i just ask a quick question about that since we're on this slide. >> yep. >> president laguana: so is this like a one-time temp job that somebody would apply with the city or like a job that's somebody already employed by the city would apply to pick up? >> i would say volunteer by a city employee. >> president laguana: volunteer by a city employee. >> yeah. so hopefully someone out there owes me some favors, but i have to put my thinking cap on who that might be. >> president laguana: or we

have to promise them future favors. >> that's true too. and just since we're on this slide, you know, on the program manager for the legacy business program and we're going to have to take about two to three months off in reviewing any new legacy business program applications so we can take care of this grant so you should be seeing another application on june 4th. still to be determined we're still trying to figure out if grantees need to be established and that's going to be a bit of an effort to get them set up by the suppliers. there's been streamlining on the part of the city to make that not as difficult and i have a lot of experience

setting up legacy grantees of suppliers we still are trying to get online donations where give to sf can mark them specifically for the fund and then we'll have to do some fundraising so we can put money to the $3 million we're getting from the city. there is a phase two to the grant in the legislation. after january 31st, the venue fund will support the relocation and re-opening of eligible venues rent increases and we have not determined the rules for phase two yet. those are to be determined. any questions. >> president laguana: commissioners, do we have any

questions? >> commissioner: yeah. how can we help you get some assistance? is there a memo that you're circulating and can share with us and are there parameters of who we can have to be an assistant on the review process? >> i did create a one-page document to demonstrate what we think the grant review process would look like and i can share that with anybody. that's fine. and, as i mentioned to president laguana, it would be a city employee that we're looking for. so, yeah, if you know of anyone, that would be helpful. >> president laguana: rick, i'm happy to blast this on twitter. i don't have much of a "gram" presence or tikto.

k so i can try to get the word out to the city families. ordinarily you wouldn't think a volunteer position would be 25, hours would be that appealing. maybe that makes it a little easier for somebody wanting to get involved and engaged. yeah. if any of you have networks with city employees as well. i think that's our pitch. this is how we help keep our music venues and entertainment venues into a post-pandemic recovery. so all hands on deck. >> that'd be great. >> commissioner: is there also an opportunity to help with like the fundraising efforts to build more funds into this? or is that -- >> so what we're going to do is

we're going to as soon as we can which is hopefully the 21st, we're going to get the grant out and hopefully the grants come back. as much money so we'll do at least one, maybe two more rounds of grants based on how much funding comes in. so, yeah, that will definitely be a fundraising push not only from our office, but also from the venues themselves that we've been working with to do fundraising and get more funding in. right now, people can donate by checking we have received a couple of donations at this

point. once we have that online. >> commissioner: will it be corporate donations? >> i believe so. >> commissioner: because if you can do that with these venues, right now the beer and alcohol companies. >> president laguana: great point. i'm making a note of that. >> commissioner: and i have a network with them. so if you can get me something, richard, on that, i can put it out to at least some big beer distributors i know because if these places survive, that's business for them. >> yep. once we have that, we'll let everyone know for sure. right. thank you very much. >> president laguana: yeah. super helpful. commissioner adams can you make a point of that and remind me

in two weeks. and if rick hasn't yet by that point, i will connect you to the venue coalition folks to see if there's any connections that they haven't already made. but i think that would be wonderful and makes perfect sense to me. okay. any other comment. is anyone on the line for public comment? james, do we have anybody on the line for public comment? >> we have two people listening, but nobody's raised their hand for public comment. >> president laguana: great. and, commissioner adams, a

small business advocate, long

and amending the transportation code to prohibit parking in a zone on any street, alley, or portion of a street or alley that's subject to a posted parking prohibited except for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers or freight making findings of consistency with the general plan and the eight priorities of the policy planning code section 101.1. this is a discussion item before you, commissioners, and we do have presenters robin abad and if we're able to get monica in she is assisting the presentation and answering questions manslaughter and, with that, robin let me give you your hosting privileges.

>> thank you director dick endrizzi. thank you for having me back. >> president laguana: robin, i just wanted to say i think you're becoming the alec baldwin of small business commission as the most frequent host or most frequent guest. this has got to be in the past year your nineth or tenth visit. sorry. i just had to interject with that. >> it's good to be back, president laguana. the small business commission feels like a kind of home for the program. your advocacy and, you know, sort of attentiveness to the program has been a huge part of keeping us on track and a huge success for the program. so we're grateful for everything constructive that the commission has done. constructive criticism. all the rest of it has definitely been a benefit to the program.

it's good to be back home. so, yes, i think i'm joined or hopefully will be joined by deputy program manager monica manipulateawich. part of what we will be talking about today is just thinking about the curb industry long-term for san francisco and how that works better for all users, small businesses, our disabled community, and our elderly youth. and everyone else. so we'll go ahead and share my screen. i've prepared some materials. commissioners, can you see? you should see a slide show. >> president laguana: yes. >> thank you, commissioner dooley, for that nodding. just a quick context.

it's set to transform even more as we move to a codified program. we'll talk about the policy goals and legislative action associated with transitioning this from like a temporary emergency program to something that is more of a long lasting opportunity for san francisco neighborhoods and then, of course, time for question and discussion at the end. where do shared spaces take place, just to recap. in the curb side lane and sidewalk. curb side. sometimes entire streets are closed for a few days a week. usually on weekends to provide greater area for circulation and even larger area for folks to gather and then on open parts of parcels for various different types of primarily commercial activities. so whether that's contactless

pickups or groceries or prescriptions. some outdoor retailing and some inventive applications of this program for that type of use during covid, of course, making sure there's physically distanced that can happen outside our grocery stores and pharmacies. outdoor entertainment. very pertinent to the last agenda item that you just heard o.e.w.d. and outdoor dining. so this is also just a bit of background. the small business commission, really the dyer economic impact that covid-19 has brought not only in our own local small business community, but in small businesses across the country. according to this study, last year in the latter part of last

year ranked third in the nation so this is the trend. this is the environment that this program was created to respond to and we know that the economic impacts of that fall-are going to reverberate for years to come. this program will move with that and calibrate to that in order to equal economic recovery especially for our locally owned businesses. it's been a very dynamic last year and will continue to be an extremely dynamic next few months even through the end of this year. these are just some major milestones that small business commission does light up on this timeline and you can see that the program has been operating in and out of different risk levels. tier red, tier orange, tier

yellow. we were under the state's regional shelter-in-place associated with i.c.u. capacities. so very dynamic environment and i think there's hope that this environment is stabilizing. despite that dynamic year that we've had the growth in shared spaces has been steady and the interest from small businesses in san francisco has remained, you know, very high. and so even you can see here during the winter when no one was allowed to operate, least of all restaurants, there was still a steady influx of applications for folks getting ready to leverage shared spaces with outdoor activities were allowed to resume again. our deputy and thanks director

dick endrizzi. so as the number of applications has grown, so have a number of active permits. to date, since the program launched in july of 2020, we have received over 3,000 applications and across those many different typologies. there is a pretty healthy mix of small businesses in different parts of our public realm and public rights in a way. i think that this slide might be slightly outdated. i think we have just music permits at the present time. but here's a great example some

activation during small business week. so, you know, the benefits, the real financial benefits of shared spaces are still under study. we don't yet have information from the latter or the last order of calendar year '20. so we're not able to extend this analysis on that slide for the first six months of the program. you know, trends are really good. we are seeing those who do have shared spaces are able to bring more employees back. they are able to earn more to support their families and then also contribute to the city's overall tax base which we're trying to stabilize.

that we have out to shared space applicants. both current shared spaces operators as well as perspective ones. we found that, you know, at least half of these small businesses are women-owned enterprises and 33% are immigrant owned and over a third of them identify as minority owned in some way. and so we know that based on the feedback, that had it not been for shared spaces, some folks would not have been able to operate at all on the various levels of public health directives. and the specktor of clothing forever has been worrisome for many of us for some of these instances that are legacy businesses have been serving

their neighborhoods and communities for decades. this is a way to avoid permanent closure. most folks didn't think of san francisco as a thriving outdoor culture, but it's something that we've experimented with. we found there's a fair degree of interest in appetite. so even as indoor capacity has opened and closed, you know, in various stages over the last year, we've seen that there's still this, you know, this belief that folks would want to take on this extra risk and make this extra investment in the public realm.

moving on to just the policy goals and what the legislation needs to achieve. these are the nine big goals. there are many details which public works, the sfmta, the office of small business, the entertainment commission, the office of economic workforce development that we've been working on together to implement each and every one of these goals in the program. we're not going to go into every single one today. we could probably have three to four hearings on that. but i will focus on a few of them. one is equity inclusion. we're talking about how we're phasing in the program as those economic conditions hopefully improve and change. a little bit on arts and culture and then also how we're handling balancing curb side over time. we've certainly seen some

extremes during the height of the pandemic. there's the extra material addressing the rest of the policy issues if commissioners or members of the public want to have questions about other components. we know that covid-19 has devastated many communities and some communities have been harder hit because they were already, you know, subject to historical, structural injustices. so those neighborhoods, those demographics have been hit even harder from covid. so we don't want to deepen those inequities with this new version of the program and other mechanisms in order to. we also know as economic

recovery is going to be a long process. it's going to happen in stages. everyone's not going to get right back into their jobs overnight and so the new code requirements and expectations around permitting fees and the like are going to phase in over time. one thing is that it does fix any issues that you might have so these are things like like ensuring your site is acceptable. ensuring and other emergency access requirements around design. this is doing things like, you know, ensuring that you have appropriate clearance from an intersection to allow for visibility of motorists and

cyclists and pedestrians in and around that intersection. so that's a really, that's something to emphasize here. we want to give everyone as much time as possible in this case more than seven months away, eight months away to start thinking about how some of these issues can be addressed at the site in order to be issued a codified permit. another really important thing that this legislation currently does is that it defers fee collection until 2022. so, eventually, you know, the city will levy a permit fee for i'd say a park lift just we had done prekoefdz. we'll take a look at some of those numbers in a moment. though those might be assessed in the new year, they won't be collected until the end of the

fiscal year. it's also important to note and we just heard an agenda item about venue recovery that the legislation knowledges that performing artists and artists, arts and culture folks are very much part of our economy and has a role to play in economic and social and psychological recovery that we're all going to be embarking on here. a lot of the provisions for the music permit which were created during covid shared spaces will be carried forward. we're also going to allow for among a short-term temporary basis arts culture and entertainment activities to

become a primary use rather than just accessory to some other commercial activity like dining or retail. so we also know that as our economy picks back up, stores and restaurants re-open. there are more people moving about in our city of hopefully. transit service that was suspended during covid will revise. this means the function of our streets and the demands on our streets will continue to evolve and increase. so this also looks like rebalancing the ways that curbed or have been used over covid. so we have for example, during the emergency transit stops where a bus light has been suspended or on occasion in yellow zones that would have

served otherwise really busy merchants in the block that have maybe shut down. so we are going to be looking at kind of a long term process of making sure that yellow zones are reinstated, that transit stops that are needed are accessible and, you know, unimpeded so that folks can get from transit stops to public transit vehicles, of course. monica can speak more to this, but we also will be looking at making sure that loading zones for disabled folks and short-term parking and metered parking is reintroduced. as conditions change. we also want to make sure we want to encourage more sharing and turn over for these shared spaces sites, these park sites.

there have been some wonderful examples during covid. neighboring businesses cooperating. sharing a shared space with like a bar restaurant that pet retailers there during the day sort of resiprocated that we want to continue encouraging. should also mention that of course our transit remains first and foremost.

and we need to ensure that whatever we're doing in the street, park lites or otherwise are keeping the environment safe and accessible also for walking. so, another key provision that the legislation does a conversation that's been going on for many years even before covid about public access to these facilities. as you know, for the before shared spaces, the covid version of the program, san francisco had a very successful park lit program. we're in our tenth or eleventh year now. the way of using the curb side for another use.

we want to keep the best of both those programs under this new program moving forward. so what does this look like? well, we have precovid like in the outer avenues. where the main program or intention is not commercial activity. and, sort of on the other end of this new spectrum that we have, you have this primary purpose is for commercial activity. one and three are fixed. these are in the curb side lane that are there 24/7 for the whole duration of the permit year and maybe even successive permit renewal years. the middle typology is also a kind of commercial activity, but it's comprised of materials and it's comprised of furnishings that are movable.

it allows for a lot of flexibility. it's more flexible for the owner. if you don't want to invest in the big fancy parklet. maybe you really want to pop in on the mornings, weekends or afternoons. this is also great from a curb management and transportation management. that curb can be turned over to other much needed uses. so, again, loading zone. short term or parking. other needs and demands. so here's some examples of some elegant, simple yet elegant examples of how that movable parklet have looked during

covid. what they can continue to look like into the future. all right. so public access is something i alluded to a couple of slides ago and i think i have maybe like four more slides. >> president laguana: the floor is yours. take as much time as you need to. >> excuse me. my allergies are killing me today. here, you see the spectrum where piers of parklet types what expectations are around youth and access. to tier one, that's our precovid type. this might be a youth group in the neighborhood or the boys and girls club or, you know, a community benefit district or another entity wanting to just really take that space in order to create a publicly accessible

open space facility. again, at the other end of the spectrum, you have a commercial parklet. and you have the immovable. in tiers two and three, the implication that while you're having your brunch service or your wine and pizza service, somewhere in the vicinity of your site over for the public general use. walking your child from bus to home in the afternoon and you pass a number of these shared spaces at 3:00 in the afternoon. there's still some opportunity for you to take a seat. enjoy the vibrancy of your neighborhood. we really want all of these parklets to continue make and we want to avoid a condition where you have a whole bunch of

shipping containers that are closed at all hours except for when a restaurant might not be open in the evenings. we've seen a lot of success demonstrated success over the last ten years of our city. we know this can work something that i know folks have also been very intense are what future fees. these are fees that would not be collected until the start of the next fiscal year giving everyone about 18, 20 months grace from now. for getting your first. of course, it's the first annual permitting fee that would, you know, get larger depending on how many parking

spaces you are planning to take. most shared spaces are about two. some are just one, some are a little bigger. we just want to calibrate the seat to the amount of space you're taking up. every year after for a renewal, it's just a flat rate per space. >> president laguana: a quick question about the slide, if i may. under the commercial parklet for the first annual fee. is that $6,000 is that correct? >> as of today, yes. and for reference, commissioners, the precovid parklet hovered around $5,000, $6,000 for that first annual fee. that included things charging for meter removal. we're actually eliminating a

lot of that kind of added extraneous cost including repainting a curb color. moving a pike rack. so we can get a little bit more into that. precovid is about what the liability would have been for a publicly successful parklet. >> commissioner: can i also -- what the entertainment fee for the public parklet mean? >> yeah. thanks commissioner huie. if you want to pursue live entertainment onto any site. it would be a parklet, it could be a closed parking lot like the lilac lot or one of the roadway closures like onnendaga

or london or excelsior. the entertainment commission regulates that and that's a separate and different permanent fee. >> commissioner huie: would that just be accessible to the parklet sponsor or is it like anyone in the community can say, i want to start playing my violin in the parklet? >> this fee is aimed at the sponsor. but you bring up a good question, commissioner huie, about sort of things that might be could be considered as risk activity. so i don't have an answer for that right now. >> commissioner huie: okay. >> any other questions on this

schedule? commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: how did you guys come up with this? i'm going to wait for more comments after your presentation. but who like really decides this? how did you quantify this math? >> that's a great question, commissioner. there are a bunch of different ways that we looked at these fees. we looked at the former parklet fees. we also looked at methodology that public works uses to for sidewalk tables and chairs. so there is a calculus there that's used as a per square footage calculation. that was part of what went into the analysis for this. but mostly, it was based on what the averages were for pre-covid parklet fees and wanting to acknowledge that we

create a spectrum or set of tiers. because that one-size-fits-all doesn't fit all applications. so that was made. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: when you divide the square footage, i'm assuming you're selling by 20 per stall? >> about that. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: [inaudible] square feet. >> i believe so. yeah. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i'll come back. i'm going to revisit this after your presentation in open comments. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. some other things about these, you know, we want to keep things really simple so we, public works will be the agency collecting fees and renewal fees will be handled through the unified license fee.

that was some very specific feedback that we got from small business stakeholders so everything appears on that one bill. i think that's it. the only thing i would add is that we are calibrating or we're setting the permit approval review and approval timetable to align with the provisions of proposition 8, so that is thirty days. before it was about three days for sidewalks and for curb side and private property shared spaces and about ten days for closures. all of that now moving forward. it's going to be 30 days so that if you are a merchant or if you are a community benefit district or a merchant association seeking a permit, it feels the same as if you were pursuing a permit for a tenant improvement or some

other small business permit in our permit tool box. so i think that was it in terms of the content that i had programmed. i don't know if you want to go into comment on that. >> president laguana: sure. commissioner dooley. you're on mute, commissioner dooley. >> commissioner dooley: hi. i have a few questions about some of the considerations for deciding on shared spaces being permanent or not. you know, i base a lot of them on my neighborhood and i just want to bring up because i think some of them are universal and i was wondering how some of these things would proceed. first is the consideration of a if a neighborhood has narrow or

single-lane streets or sub standards with sidewalks which is something we see in north beach and just ability access because 14 of the 18 parking spaces are now shared spaces. it just means that the people that are going to be walking down that street, they have to enter or exit the side of the street from the end of each street because there's no longer any space to cross the street except for at the end, so i was wondering about that for in terms of disability. i know a lot of people are, for example, our block is almost the whole west side of the street is entirely taken up by

shared spaces and bars. people are having to deal with which should be anywhere. waiters coming back and forth across the sidewalk, that type of thing that can create kind of an impairment especially if it becomes as it is in this neighborhood in that it becomes a long, dark corridor that people have to access and go past open businesses that, you know, are very busy. so that becomes a problem. i'm wondering if you're considering a percentage of per street of shared spaces for the permanent program, robin? >> yes, thank you, commissioner dooley, you raise a lot of good

points. i'll let my colleague monica from mta address the last point. sort of the curb side analysis that we will do at the implementing sort of in phases with the roll-out of shared spaces and before i do that, director dick endrizzi. i can't figure out how to stop sharing my screen and get back to. -- here we go. is this how we do it? monica, do you want to take commissioner dooley's question about use of curb side? >> you bet. yeah. can you guys hear me okay? >> yes. >> sorry i wasn't on first thing. but good to see you so we have

a lot of work ahead of us. so to your question about a percentage. it's not necessarily a percentage per se at the outright. but there will be as we go corridor and block by block and assess the loading curb needs for bus zones or parking, for accessible parking and shared spaces within sort of the agency's curb management strategy and if you're not aware. the curb strategy in practice like robin was explaining earlier means effectively we'll be going corridor by corridor, block by block to get a sense of what's on the ground and assess curb management needs so we can be making decisions and

that commercial district. so does that answer your question about how that process looks. >> well. for an example on a block in north beach, i personally am opening two businesses that are 100% obscured because they are every inch except for where we are is a shared space. so it means that people driving by cannot see their retail businesses, the dry cleaners. so that's just why i'm asking if there would be a lot of consideration that not everyone is a restaurant or a bar and they need their visibility also. >> totally. and, if i may, i'm glad you asked that question. i realize you described that and i was probably unclear. one thing that it does, our

agency strategy is it has a hierarchy of uses depending on different land uses and neighborhood and it has a hierarchy for example for access for movement and access for people and goods and like it goes down. i think and saying this is your neighborhood commercial district before we passenger loading and commercial loading. it's a priority above in that hierarchy. is there appropriate loading first if that makes sense. i think those considerations in practice work out that way because we're able to sort of take that about the obscuring of other retail and services.

>> president laguana: commissioners. i apologize. i didn't mean to cut you off. commissioner dooley, i have information that's relevant to your question. would it be appropriate? >> yes. absolutely. >> president laguana: okay. i actually had a conversation with supervisor melgar specifically about this specific topic of so the shared space. but nonetheless. there's concern about being but

at least on the phone with me she told me that she was looking including raising the height that a sign could be allowed to put so currently right now there's a very specific height for signs are allowed to be so she expressed some interest in changing the planning codes so that retail shops could have signs a bit higher. wouldn't necessarily be shot by the shared space. i think the larger point i think is, you know it's

detailed specific policy that can address what's happening in a particular neighborhood and can still make the policy applicable citywide without it being 16,000 pages. some of this has to be deferred down to the local level, but the top level concern that you're raving here doesn't have a shared space i can just tell you that through all my conversations with shared spaces, that's very much a concern and that people are

talking about it including the chair of the land use committee and i'm confident it's a solvable problem deferred some of the decision making to downstream at mta and upstream at the planning level. i apologize for the long answer but i spoke to supervisor melgar for probably about a half hour on just this very topic alone. >> commissioner: thank you. >> president laguana: and i guess i should say, monica or robin, if anything i said there was inaccurate or didn't reflect what your understanding, by all means feel free to correct me. >> not at all.

urban design impacts are part of our set of consideration. there's all the very technical dimension of ensuring that the curb as this finite resources given that everything it can be and should be doing. it's important as a pedestrian, as a perspective patron of a business, so, you know, i mentioned the kind of example, the shipping containers just being lined up across that. so i think we should continue to see refinements to design parameters that we're going to get a high quality shoe scape and it doesn't mean it has to be a fancy street scape. i see some urban design principle can be further elaborated in our guidelines to make sure we're getting a lot of consistency but a lot of

that experience and really important urban design stuff is addressed. >> president laguana: yeah. and i think there's still a lot of discovery right now. we're still figuring out what works and doesn't work. it's going to take some time to work through both the opportunities and the issues that arise. so, commissioner dooley, did you have more questions? >> commissioner dooley: i have a few things. i just bring this all up because currently some of the blocks in my neighborhood have become so congested with people and the shared spaces that no one will walk on the sidewalks anymore because they feel like they're intruding on private space and so that just has to be thought about. one last question, in terms of people applying for the permanent shared spaces, is there going to be consideration of people who have consistently

violated that the current shared spaces which i certainly have knowledge that that has happened. are they still going to be right up there in terms of applying for a permanent spaces when theirs have become such a public nuisance? >> thank you for pointing that out, commissioner dooley. everyone needs to be in compliance in order to qualify for a permit. so that's compliance in the sense of physical design and the way that your site has been con figured, but it also is in compliance with operations so if there has been consistent noises or consistent distancing and face wearing mask compliance issues, those all go into our set of considerations about, you know, how we permit with a permit codified -- a

permit who we issue that to. there's a place for investigation. it's not the official record. but it is a consideration certainly. i mean, we want everyone to continue being good actors, being good neighbors and so that's part of it. yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner dooley. >> president laguana: commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: thank you, president laguana. robin, can you go back to the schedule slide if that's

possible. >> are you able to see the chart? >> president laguana: we are. thank you. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: obviously i'm concerned regarding the schedule. it definitely becomes a very big barrier for the number 3, that comes out to $42.86 i have colleagues here on this commission and that's high. smaller retailers where they turn around on the table tops or the retailers. so i'm really concerned about that and i really have difficulty believing that the

mayor office

>> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i bet you they're making a ton of money. and at the high-end restaurant in the marina, that's not equitable. >> justin, i don't have the meter numbers at the top of my head. i'll just add on to what robin was saying.

we didn't assess many different pricing models, but if you charge market rate, if you have dynamic by neighborhood and what do those different pricing schemes look like and ultimately in the decision making process weighing the trade-off of like paying what you could if you sort of value market rate. that's one example versus not making it a barrier to entry. the fees are on the scale closer to making sure that it is not a barrier to entry while still taking into account how high it could go like if you were taking into account metering recoveries. so it's complicated where you fall on the spectrum and they ultimately, robin, the mayor's office, but the proposal here is what landed at this compromise. >> i mean, if you do square

footage, it's like $7 a square foot. $42.86. i'm just, you know, i want to go on record with you. i'm not trying to [inaudible] you guys. just know it's not equitable. i'll tell you straight up. >> yeah. i hear you, commissioner. and the feedback is appreciated. that will definitely be taking it back. >> president laguana: yeah. you know, i think the small business commission would not be doing its job if we were not advocating for all our small businesses and advocating for these to be as low as we can possibly make them. so, you know, i'll add my voice to william -- sorry commissioner ortiz-cartagena

and say that certainly i hope we can fund a way to get these lower so that more businesses can participate. i'll also point out that this is a not necessarily the answer and the solution, but at least it's something that there is a shared spaces equity grant program, commissioner ortiz-cartagena, that has $2.3 million in it which they've been taking applications and there will be i believe money distributed from that fund to help with some of the stuff, but i also say as well that if we want these fees to be lower, that's part of the conversation that we need to have with our friends at the board of supervisors because they're the ones that ultimately will be voting on this. so that's who i think we need

to be directing most of our commentary at because ultimately, it's going to be their final call. commissioner huie. >> commissioner huie: i just wanted to also i guess third that same sentiment from commissioner ortiz-cartagena. i feel like even if we're taking out the component of neighborhood or racial equity, whatever it is, i think in general, that's just way high and i just don't understand the thinking behind this being a recovery project to be able to support small businesses to now being a money generating revenue project for the city. like, i think it's too soon to consider this initiative as now how do we recover meter -- like

i feel like that should not even be part of the equation right now. we have small businesses that have been shut down and forced to close and not have any revenue for a year and now we are already speaking about a 6,$000 annual fee and 3,$000 going forward i think is hurtful and it's appalling after the amount of work that i personally have been going through with trying to get voices heard through the survey. i think hearing the amount of pain that people have been going through and seeing how quickly we're thinking about how to generate city revenue off a recovery initiative seems a little tone deaf at best.

and, again, not directed towards you or anyone, just publicly stating, i thought your presentation was actually very clear and helped me really gather some ideas around that and that was not my anticipated comment prior to, so i have another one later but i can share that later. thank you. >> president laguana: you know, now would be the right time to share that. >> commissioner huie: okay. well, the other piece that i was going to ask about is i think throughout this program, we've heard a lot of concerns and questions regarding like responsibility of what happens to the space overnight. i think there's overall businesses are concerned with safety, crime, cleanliness, all these other kind of issues that are impacting some of their

existing shared spaces and i was just curious as to whether that is part of the conversation. >> yeah. thank you for bringing that up, commissioner huie, and we're diverging somewhat from the way that parklets have been regulated for the better part of the last 10 years in that moving forward, the requirement for public accessibility to the sites whether you're a tier one parklet or a tier three parklet is focused on daytime, daylight hours. so this does give the option. not everyone has to take it. some may feel compelled. others in other neighborhoods given the dynamics in their neighborhood right now might want to give this. for example, implement measures to discourage access overnight. so, you know, the original

thrust and values of the parklet program was, you know, open at all times to everyone and i think with the scale that we've seen with this experiment, we know we'd have to kind of adjust the way that folks are able to manage these to ensure that they remain safe and free of hazards and the like. so i think that's a key nuance, but i think it's going to make an important difference for these being viable and some parts of the city. >>. >> commissioner huie: i think some businesses saw some pushback as they were securing their shared spaces overnight. i feel like if the shared space is then considered kind of like a privately owned entity, then i feel like there needs to be some kind of like public

messaging around the program because i think there were some neighborhoods where there was a lot of pushback like that, you know, like the businesses weren't welcoming, you know, people who were unhomed and needed shelter and, you know, that's not i feel like that puts people in a very difficult situation that somehow i think we need to kind of address what, you know, what happens more publicly, like have a more shared vision of what this means for everybody and some residents also feel like public spaces should be accessible to all residents, right. and so now we're kind of changing that narrative and i think beyond just messaging to

business owners of the details of how to do things, i think we need to have more of an understanding as to how we use the city that we love and what this kind of means for neighborhoods. so that would be my encouragement is to have more public messaging towards everybody so we all can really enjoy it and understand what everybody's roles are. thank you. >> thank you. much appreciated. maybe just wanted to offer one clarification to the commission about the fees. they are not a revenue generator by any means nor do they at all begin to offset, for example, parking meters that are occupied.

they really are a fraction of the cost that it takes for the city to administer and to deliver the program safely and so, the fee structure that we've shown is mostly to reflect the kind of equity values around more commercial intensive fee around commercialization versus fully public. so that's mostly what the fee schedule is attempting to do is trying to incentivize accessibility as you were just speaking to. i hear the feedback about the numbers themselves and you know, this is now on the floor at the board of supervisors.

is going to be taking place. and in this scenario or this piece, you know, to just be as transparent as possible with all of it, because i've noticed that equity is tied so closely to transparency when we're talking about equity understanding is such key and i think that would help when you're coming upon this balancing act and to be antibiotic to share some of their thinking behind it and to be clear about that is helpful. i think that's when people who's getting what and why am i not getting what i needed and things like that.

i think if people had a more the other piece too is with um, actually -- i'm just going to leave it there because i'm going to work on that for a second. but i would say that so far, oh, i was going to say about the grant. this is what i was going to say. you know, if the shared spaces grant, the other thing i'm finding and a lot of what i'm speaking on is based on the research that we've been doing as a commissioner or as a small business commission. so it may seem out of sorts, but grants are hard for people

to navigate, you know, a set price that's lower is a lot easier for someone to obtain than a grant. grant adds time, it adds confusion, it adds competition. it adds elements into the process that, again, sometimes work against equity. and that's something that we're seeing over and over again as why did i not get this grant. why did somebody else get this grant. equity grants are based on things that feel very much out of your control. it adds again to this competitive process that moves away from the collaboration and healing. i just kind of caution again leaning on a grant or something of that type of process in lieu of like or in place of a lower

cost of entry. [please stand by]

want to go on record as well. my biggest concern, of course, are the business owners, who are already under so much stress. and just echoing what i've already heard. i can't imagine some of the businesses that actually have these shared spaces with even the concept of -- you said it so beautifully, commissioner, about the pressure of even trying to rely on a grant to, you know, fund to be potentially make-or-break of you trying to stay open. let alone, all of the other pressures that we are having to

deal with. and, again, i know this is isn't directed at you all, but i just emotionally -- i can't imagine the impact this would make on these business owners, to think about another burden to have to bear in such a, you know, situation that we're in right now. i can't even imagine it. but i think, my question -- i know -- is this the first time? because this is the first time i've heard of this. when did this come to be? is this something that is now introduced for the very first time, these fees were going to be applied in the way that they are now? i mean, as far as the pricing is concerned and the discussion that these were going to be, you know -- that it's even on the table?

i'm sorry, i can't find the ways to form the question. >> are you asking if -- sorry, to help you, are you asking if this when the price became publicly available? >> commissioner dickerson: thank you, yes. >> thank you, commissioner dickerson. so, there was a version of the -- when the legislation was first introduced on march 16th, i believe it was, about a month ago now, the first time fees were in there. there was another version of the legislation that was just introduced last week that had additions to it, maybe having to do with ceqa, environmental quality act, we had to make sure that the legislation was addressing certain issues, but in there, there was an addition

for the recurring renewal fees. when it originally introduced on march 16th, the legislation had a blank place holder for renewal fees. so that's where, commissioner had asked about the methodology we looked at. we looked at sidewalk tables and chairs, square footage calculation, and that was what drove the numbers we see today. you know, publicly, the -- all of the fees, first-time, as well as renewal fee, haven't been circulated -- the first time they were circulated was when legislation -- substitute legislation was introduced. i believe it was last week in the mayor's office on the 6th. so they are fairly new. and this is the dialogue, now there is numbers, this is where

the public discourse and dialogue begins. we're getting the reactions that the small business commission is having tonight to the numbers is really important for us to know. and as we move through our information hearing, that other city commissions, that is all feedback that is part of the deliberation about what the final form of this legislation will take. >> thank you. commissioner dickerson, i didn't mean to cut you off. >> commissioner dickerson: you didn't cut me off. i appreciate it, president. >> president laguana: so, seeing no other questions, i'll just add a couple comments and observations of my own. one, i think we know that most

of our small businesses have very low profit margins. you know, 1-2%, maybe 5%. just walk you through the math on this, right? if, you know, we charge, say, $6,000 for something and their profit margins are 2%, then just to break even on that $6,000, they need to make $300,000 in revenue just to get to where they were in a place where it was actually a profitable enterprise. we know from our forth coming commission survey, that many of our restaurants have been struggling to hit numbers like that on such a small number of space. we also know from talking to the restaurant community, there is a

ceiling on what you can hope to make in a shared space. the industry, i think, refers to it as turnover, i forget the exact term, tops turnover, you know, it's basically how many people can you seat within a limited space in a night? and a space like a shared space, if we're talking about a fine dining establishment, maybe you'll be able to get two sets of diners over the course of an entire night. one of the challenges that we have when contemplating city-wide policy is that it's easy to think about this in terms of dining, but then you have to-go sort of food. people grabbing chinese food, or a burrito. you have coffee shops, bakeries and all these different kinds of

shared spaces. and the equation on the amount of people that need to go through to make it economically viable can change dramatically from business type to business type. and it is, i think, a fundamental challenge for policymakers when they're trying to figure out how much to charge for this. this is my observation. we've arranged the city in such a way, that one time this made sense. we created an enterprise department. that's a department that has to make their money back from the fees and revenues that they charge. if created, that works fine when, you know, systems are static and not changing, you know, incentivizes departments

to move quickly, but we're in unchartered territory here. and, really, our fundamental priority, our public policy goal here, is to help our small businesses recover and to get them back up off their feet. or on to their feet. and this is now intention, creating an imbalance between these department goals, which is they have to make a certain amount of revenue in order to sustain their staff and budgets. and then over here, we have this community that desperately needs help to recover. and i think what we're looking at right now, and i don't want to put words in anybody's mouth and i wasn't necessarily in the room on these meetings and i don't have particularly special knowledge, but what i think we're looking at now, if i'm a

department head, you know, the parking meter revenue in some cases was substantial. and the costs that are incurred by these inspections are very real. you know, some of the elements of getting this off the ground from a department-head perspective is intimidating, so they're naturally trying to be protective of their departments and employees. but this is now intention with our public policy. and our public policy goals, which is we want to help our small businesses recover. and when i think about the fact that, what commissioner ortiz said, this is inequity, if we have something that works for a business in the marina, might not necessarily work for, you

know, a little taco shop on 24th. you know, in a tiny space. and so, i don't know that it's possible to get a perfect answer, but certainly i think we need to work harder on getting these fees lower. i think all our -- like, i personally feel that directionally, our departments need to get clear on what our overall public policy goal is here. and it's not to support the departments through small business revenue. that's not the public policy goal. the reason we charge for parking spaces in the first place is so that people won't park their cars all day, so they'll get more people coming to the businesses. that's why we charge the meters. we don't charge the meters to

feed the m.t.a. budget. we charge the meters to support the small business economy so that more and more people will come and visit and rotate. so we've kind of lost sight, you know, even just thinking about trying to recover parking meter revenue. the whole point of parking-meter revenue was to support small businesses. that's why there is not parking-meter revenue in residential neighborhoods. if it was just about getting revenue from parking spaces, we'd have meters in every parking spot in the city and we'd maximize our revenue. so, i think, right now, what we need to do is really focus on our top public policy goal which is restoring our small businesses to a place of health and getting them back on their feet. and maybe even making them stronger than they were before. my god, what would the harm in that be? we'd have more entry-level jobs.

we'd have more jobs for, you know, folks without college educations like myself. for folks that are undocumented workers and people that have struggled to just find that first step in the ladder to success. this is what we're trying to protect. and this is what we're trying to advocate. and that is, frankly, not going to be possible if these fees are so high that only a business that makes $600,000 or a million dollars a year per parking spot can make it financially viable. so part of the equation of these fees is the financial viability for the underlying business. and that has to be front and center because that's why we're doing the whole damn thing to begin with.

so, i hope that our various policymakers were make an effort here to hear what the commission has said tonight. this isn't an action item. we don't have a vote planned or scheduled. but i think we've all spoken pretty loud and clear here that, in order for this program to work, it's got to be workable for small business. that's the point of it. we should get that part right. we should be really careful to get that part right. robin, i'll let you have the final word before public comment. >> thank you, president. yeah, no, i mean, this is what commission hearings are for. this is what, you know, the public process is all about. putting an idea out there, developing the best idea possible, getting it out there and talking about it as a community and as a city.

so, you know, i hear all of the comments. i know i'm not the only one who is listening and paying attention and look forward to, you know, the public discourse as they continue forward and as we shape this thing into its final form. so i don't know if there are any public comments or questions, but i'm available. my colleague monica had to leave of the sfmta. if there is anything we can't answer, we can bring it back to the sfmta and get that back to you. >> president laguana: wonderful. james, do we have public commenters on the line? >> yes, we have two people in queue and four people listening. i'll unmute the first one. >> president laguana: commissioner dickerson, did you want to post your slide on directions on how to call in?

okay. and, james, if you could please allow the commenters to start commenting, that would be great. >> good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you for allowing me to speak. i'm terry and one of the owners of cliff's variety store on castro street. in considering legislation for shared spaces i think it's important that the legislation take a balanced look at a commercial corridor. there must be loading zones available for safety of employees and in order to receive the goods. there must be enough parking to make an area sustainable for all the businesses in an area. although we'd like to be a transit-first city, the reality is muni is desperately broken and was broken before the

pandemic and we can't make plans on the hope that it will some day work. as a retail business, my customers need to be able to park. they will only make small purchases if they're unable to park. we're handing off our businesses to amazon, big box stores with parking lots. the parking must be necessary and continue the vitality on the streets. when i walk my business area, at least half the current parkettes in the castro are unneeded and underutilized. neither are utilized except by anyone with the unhoused. it has been boarded up for more than four months. oz berger has pigeon spikes on the spaces and more people.

in general, i'm in favor of shared spaces continuing, but it is necessary that a holistic approach to a community be considered. additionally, there are certain items having read the legislation as proposed, that concerns me. one is the department that approves these spaces must be responsive to serious concerns in a timely manner. as of right now, it only addresses the person putting in the request for the parkette. cleanliness on page 31, require that the parklets be cleaned up, but does nothing to address the day situation. if you walk down the street at 8:00, 9:00 in the morning, it's disgusting and it hurts businesses. only places of concern have to do with the public bench requirement at every private

parklet. the requirement that is requiring public benches means the businesses are going to have the unhoused setting up there all day long, hurting every business in the community with no ability to move them along. additionally, an area that i haven't heard anything about, is when there is major construction planned for an area, this should be looked at how many additional parking spots are being taken from that community in order to create vibrancy for the whole community. thank you very much for letting me speak. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is queena. i have a few concerns regarding the shared space legislation. like some of the commissioners, this legislation lacks transparency. there is little to no public

outreach put into the legislation. i heard of instance where the department contacted a nonprofit and asked them how they liked the shared space program, instead of the businesses themselves. no public outreach to the neighbors is being done. our streets are considered public spaces and it feels like the city is selling our public spaces. there are bikes everywhere. how can we ensure there is pedestrian safety along with shared spaces? another issue that a lot of commissioners are mentioning is that the permit fee isn't equitable. i really doubt that a struggling small business can shell out $5,000 for application fee.

something else that is very important is that we need to ensure that there are dedicated staff in each department working to make this program a success. we all know that different city departments have difficult times coordinating projects. one day m.t.a. will pave the street and the next day, d.p.w. will issue a permit to dig it up for pipes. how can we ensure that these departments work together? although there is a committee listed in the legislation, we need to really make sure there are staff hours dedicated to this program to make sure that it runs smoothly. i am in no way against this legislation. my main concern is that this legislation is moving too fast without community input. i think the -- would rather see a well thought out legislation rather than something slapped together in a month just so it

can pass. thank you for your time. >> thank you. james, is there any more public commenters on the line? >> that was our last speaker. >> president laguana: okay. seeing no other public commenters, public comment is closed. quick question that came up for me while listening to private -- or public comment. private comment [laughter]. robin, on the fee deferment, they're assessed in june of 2021, but collection is deferred for one year, right? so, what happens in 2022? do they get two bills at once? is that how that works? >> only if you're renewing. so, if you applied for a shared spaces codified permit in the fiscal year '22, then you would

-- >> 21, you mean? >> no, 22. >> president laguana: oh, i see. >> it might be helpful, commissioner, should i show the slide again? >> president laguana: that might help, thank you. >> let me see if i can do that. i don't know if i can share my -- thank you. thank you, director. here we go. s -- right, so, you would be -- you would receive a permit, a fee invoice, at the end of the fiscal year '22. yeah, and if you get renewed for a permit in the next year, then that would be a new permit. that would be a renewal fee,

right? just as we have with all other permits for any other kind of business permit in the city. >> president laguana: if i'm -- parklet operator -- an existing parklet operator and i arrive july 1, 2021, i guess the fees would be the initial application fee. let's say i had two parklets, it would be the initial application fee plus the additional parklet fee, so it would be $7500 for a commercial parklet? is that right? >> yeah, let's say sharky's wine and pizza is in operation under a free shared spaces permit right now. you want to continue operating for the next few years. so, yeah. you would apply for a -- not a permit-permit, but a proper permit.

a nonemergency permit. through december 31. and that -- >> president laguana: and that permit starts june 30, 2022? is that when the permit starts? >> no, the permit -- thank you for the clarification. the permit would be effective january 1, 2021. >> president laguana: okay. 2022, you mean? >> sorry, exactly. >> president laguana: okay. so, not to be confusing about this, but if i applied for my permit july 1, $7500 would be the fee, i would pay that june 30, 2022? >> yeah, correct. you have until the end of the fiscal year. >> president laguana: and then at the end of -- is the permit renewal always at the end of the fiscal year, or is it at the end of december? >> permit renewals are -- they

will be annual based on when you are issued. this first big batch we're trying to get everyone on a calendar-year cycle. start the new year fresh with one. >> president laguana: in this situation, i pay $7500 in june of 22 for the permit i got in july 2021. and then in january, 2023, i would pay $6,000 for the renewal, is that correct? >> if sharky's pizza and wine had two parking spaces. >> president laguana: okay. okay, great. and just on a side note, my grandfather had a little pizza joint in florida and i worked there for a while. so you weren't that far off [laughter]. commissioner dooley? >> commissioner dooley: i just wanted to piggyback on what some of the commissioner was asking

about, some clarification for myself. so when does the current shared spaces permits, do they have an expiration date? or are they ongoing until a certain marker, like the yellow zone? can you give me a little detail how to fit in how long the permits are for the current shared space? >> yes. the temporary emergency permits, for lack of a better, more elegant term is what we'll all what everybody currently has in hand. most of them, the vast majority of them term out at the end of june, 2021. and the expectation is to give everyone time to get adjusted to the new requirements, the new safety requirements, that those will be extended yet again another six months to the end of

the calendar year. so currently expiring june 30th, and the thinking is they will be extended through december. >> commissioner dooley: okay, great thank you. >> president laguana: one last question for you, robin. one of the callers spoke about spaces that were neglected or apparently not in use. have we considered what, you know, if somebody allows a shared space to fall into disrepair, that's not really any different than allowing your building to become covered with graffiti or any other form of physical neglect that's harmful to our commercial corridors. can you walk us through how the -- we'll be dealing with that going forward? you know, can you lose your permit mid-year and somebody require you to remove the shared

space? >> yes. that is one potential consequence. so, the new ordinance provision, they're kind of the bottom arrow in the current slide we're looking at. those new ordinance provisions have things like, you know, keep our site well maintained, keep gutters clear, keep it free of litter and debris. and so, there are also what are generally refused to as good-neighbor provisions, right? ensure that you are keeping your noise down, that you're not carrying on past 10 p.m. there are all these requirements we're now codifying. repeated infractions can lead to revocation of your permit. we don't really have that tool or that ability right now in the emergency version of the

program. and i think -- regrettably, that's why we might see a lot of the less desirable conditions than desirable conditions we see now. [please stand by] [please stand by] >> president laguana: i think in most cases it's not a concern. but it's good to hear, i think

it's actually really important information for people to understand that we don't have the tools in our chest now to actively enforce these provisions the way we will. after this law passes to make it more conducive so that's not the kind of thing that you would expect to be a consequence of making it permanent. just to say shared spaces means status quo continues in perpetuity, but there's actually a lot of behind the scenes changes. i apologize, commissioner. go ahead. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: there's just something that stuck out that caught my attention. i saw something on the slide

and you said something, president laguana. i understood that is there a potential of the new covid requirements that businesses are going to have to tear down their parklets to comply? >> i certainly hope not, commissioner ortiz-cartagena. i think, you know, the guidelines that we had for shared spaces and the temporary emergency version of the program, all of those guidelines in the requirements whether that's ada, those are all guidelines that we've had for the better part of the past 10 years and not too much is changing about them. there are some newer design requirements that have to do with making sure that fire department another emergency responder personnel can get to the sidewalk and get to buildings with ladders quickly

so folks might be familiar with the 3' gap, there needs to be a 3' barrier opening. i don't think you're going to have to -- my hope is nobody's going to have totary anything down. but you're going to have to make sure if you have a roof that spans 20', there's a passage way. so you might have to be cutting a slot in your roof or something or you might have to reconfigure our depth surfacing. i don't anticipate or hope that anybody will have to tear anything down. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: what about the lift? although those are easy fixes, the lift from the curb to where it ends. but that'd