>> chairman: good morning, ns welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, monday, may 24th, 2021, i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined by vice

>> hello, my name is will herrera. i run the old ship saloon in jackson square. we are located in district 3 under supervisor peskin. i'm also a member of the jackson square association. our businesses have been severely impacted by this pandemic specifically downtown tourism and events all of which has been well documented. we can continue to employ members of our community to ensure their financial welfare. accruing debt upwards of 750,$000 in operating costs in both locations not accounting loss of over revenue. the value of shared spaces

allows both of our venues to operate with increased occupancy in conjunction with indoor dining and permits us a broader comfort zone. we hope has more businesses open traffic will increase generating a shared per can't community. support for small businesses and we hope our employees and customer based needs consistency. please vote in favor of the legislation and without any amendments. thank you. >> thank you so much. >> hello chair melgar, supers

preston and pes kin. this is sharky laguana. i know you've been hearing a lot of calls from a lot of folks and i know you agree with me, we all agree that shared spaces has brought a lot of life and vibrancy to san francisco and that's a good thing and, you know, i think as time goes by, we're going to continue to work and refine and improve this program and i'm concerned here that an effort to come out of the gate with something perfect is going to wind up to be an enemy of the good it establishes how much the permit will be. it doesn't say what the rules are specifically for the permits that's decided by m.t.a. and those are rules that can be worked on and evaluated very quickly, rules and regulations as we all know is a

much faster and more efficient way to deal with the problems that come up. i agree on access and accessibility. i couldn't walk for several years, i'm very sensitive to that. there's more work that needs to be done there, absolutely. but what businesses need right now more than anything else is certainty after this year of incredible uncertainty. they need a promise from the city that the city's going to help them recover. it can't help them recover all the revenue they've lost over the past year, but it can also open the door who are enjoying this explosion of just a community we were only getting

five applications a year because it wasn't economically viable. it's got to be economically viable. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have two left in queue. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you so much for this opportunity. in the restaurant for models on valencia and the mission as well as the outer sunset. we shut our doors, let go over 40 people and staff, promised our creditors, landlords, vendors and paid them back as soon as we could but then the pandemic dragged on. we then started our great entertainment back up in april of 2020 until today.

it allowed us to provide entertainment throughout the pandemic through a very terrified and worried public. we've accrued hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of rent, finance charges, rolling credit debt to vendors who are also struggling to associates for businesses and the permit, our little venues drinks and but we believe in the shared spaces program because we have been using it for a to extend this

without amendment pass this legislation that has saved so many does not mean they're done and they're in to survive much longer. >> clerk: again, this is public comment. now's your time to press star 3 if you have not already. unmute the second to last caller, please. >> hi, my name's chad. i'm a district 7 resident.

i just recorded sharky to replay it during my time, but i'm fully in support of shared spaces legislation being passed today without amendments. i think the -- when we think about equity and accessibility, you can't compare it to this idea of perfect egg fi and perfect accessibility. if you look before covid, we didn't have perfection in those and so i think we often have this problem of letting perfection perfect equity you have to compare it to reality. regardless of the shared spaces and so we absolutely continue to do that. but what are the equity ramifications small business failing. what are the equity ramifications of less employment. and i'm fully in support of all those and say we're in support of small businesses, it's easy

to say, it's clearly something that we can do to step small businesses. don't just say it. do it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. and this will be our last caller. >> yeah. hi. my name is john moore. i'm a san francisco native. i think this should be extended for one year. i have been listening. i believe it has revitalized san francisco and it has helped businesses. this is a no-brainer anyone with a permit should just extend this out one year and maybe come up with any kind of new rules and regulations and implement them in a year from now, but let's keep our

businesses open. a lot of them are on a shoe string. not knowing if they're going to be open another day, another minute. they're losing money, they're going into debt. help your business community and our commercial corridors i just think that you should just go ahead and extend it for one year and we can then reevaluate everything. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we actually have one more that popped up. next speaker, please. >> hi, this is flicka mcdebuten. i have sweetie's spark bar on san francisco street and i think that the shared spaces are very important in terms of what we've all been dealing

with with the pandemic, they sort of offer an area where we can feel safe. i don't feel that good about going into crowds of people and i don't think i will for a long time feel that great about crowds of people and it's a way for us to help our businesses take care of our customers and sort of sergeantway slowly inside without endangering everybody because nobody knows who's got the vaccine and nobody knows whose got the problem. so i support the parklet spaces and i hope they become permanent fixtures in san francisco. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comment. madam chair, it looks like that was our last caller in queue. >> chairman: thank you so much, madam clerk.

with that, public comment is closed on this item. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i want to start, madam chair, by thanking all of the callers. and i actually think that in this moment or actually more than a moment, it's been a year of profound and unprecedented change i actually think we're really all on the same page and this is a very quickly evolving, area of law and regulation and the way we, you know, use our parking spaces. a former colleague of mine for many years ago complained to me that the shared spaces were privatization and i said to that individual, well, they are

privateized but they had cars in them and now they're having and in my way of thinking, that's kind of a higher good. it's putting people to work. so i don't think that we are very far apart on this issue. i also in the same breath don't think we have an emergency, i think that i everyone who has one should continue to have one and by the way i don't think that during the recovery anybody should be charged for them at all. i think we're subsidizing all kinds of things i don't think

we should start charging a fee if we have to take general money and give it to the mta, i think we should make that policy decision. i really wanted to start by giving credit where credit is due because early on long before the pandemic, the notion of using parking spots for public spaces was pioneered by a then member of the planning staff is now a member of the deputy chief of staff's title and i really want to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts he took then and the efforts that he has taken now that we've all undertaken. much of this played out in the early days after the shutdown in north beach and i was

running around with businesses and others those metal barricades from the port and the cops and d.p.w. to do what ultimately 500 block during public comment. where the concentration is and where the concentration is indeed not surprising. 423 of them in the northeast corner of san francisco district 3 and it has been a game-changer and it has been a lifesaver and i think we need to do it right. having said that, we're under

no time constraint, you know, there was i think a manufacturer notion of these were all going to go pacify on june 30th we've talked to public works. we've talked to the city attorney. none of these permits are going away any time soon. i think we have a lot of time to get this right. i think behaviors are going to change. i know restaurants that can't wait to get rid of their parklets and go to 100% indoor dining and don't have the physical and staff ability to service them. this is all going to reach an equilibrium and i'm happy to talk about that, but i very much would like to extend this program without hesitation, without purpose of evasion, without one single feat, zero, nada.

this is the wrong time to charge them. we should talk about how they should be charged, but i also wanted to deal with something that i brought up earlier and this is related to the policy issue, but most importantly related to the very late and i'd like to ask mr. eagan why he, a, chose to write a report on in insofaras his ordinance allows him to do it or not and why he decided to data dump within the last minute. so i'd like to hear from mr. eagan. i find this to be curious if not professional. >> good evening, supervisors.

ed eagan, controller's office. to your question, supervisor peskin, we made a determination that we needed to do an economic impact report on this item because of the number of shared spaces that had been installed in the past year which i recall was in the low thousands and if this legislation were to allow to make them permanent, that could substantially affect the space that the city and county of san francisco devotes to outdoor dining or to all kinds of restaurant uses. as we made clear in our report, we think the two main economic issues are are there economic benefits to sponsoring restaurants from expanding their space and to the outdoors and are there economic harms or risks to other businesses that don't sponsor shared spaces

from the loss. we're particularly referring to the curb side shared spaces and the bulk of the pandemic. given the sheer number of them that might be made permanent during this as a consequence of this legislation being passed, we felt it was important to do that analysis and the results of the analysis are there appears to be business that is do sponsor the shared spaces. may i finish, supervisor. and, our second conclusion was that we didn't find any significant benefit or harm from businesses that were in the same block as somebody else's shared space. in other words, they did essentially just as well as other businesses in the same industry that were nowhere near a parklet.

that's why we chose to do this report. in terms of the process, i apologize that it feels late to you. we aim to have our reports completed by the time i am heard in committee and we are happy to explain the report, what they mean, what the findings mean during the committee date. we'd like to get them done before the committee date. unfortunately, in this case, it was an unusual heavy lift for the data analysis and we could not get it done. we didn't even know what the results were until last thursday. so i do apologize for being later than what we would like. the process for this one is no different than any of our other processes. we didn't reach out to individual members of the committee. it's just a report was completed later than we want.

>> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i still have the floor. may i proceed? >> chairman: go ahead, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: mr. eagan, today is may the 24th so you could not give this to not only decision makers, but members of the public until an hour before this committee hearing. that's pretty outrageous, don't you think? >> as i said, supervisor, i did not have the results of the analysis completed until last thursday. we drafted the report on friday and over the weekend. we issued it first thing this morning and, again, this is not the first time that we have issued a report on the day of the committee hearing. our goal is to which we regularly meet is done on or

before the day of the committee hearing. >> supervisor peskin: all right. let me ask you this, mr. eagan, have you analyzed what a parking spot is worth to the mta? what's a parking spot worth to the mta in your analysis, sir? >> i have not. we were not able to do that in this analysis. >> supervisor peskin: oh, madam chair, anybody from the mta is anybody up here? you're doing economic impact and you're not telling this committee what the detriment to the mta is. what kind of analysis is that? is there anybody here from the mta who can tell us what an average parking spot is worth. >> supervisor, if i may, monica with our department is with the mta, this analysis was provided and supplied as part of the action that the mta board took earlier this month for companion shared spaces which is definitely some reference to

potential rejected impacts to meter revenue, but i it over to monica and talk about more details. >> sure. i know there's a lot of different ways to dissect this data. the numbers i have offhand just to provide one framing of things is that of the 2,800 parking meters in san francisco, about 1,700 are occupied by shared spaces and they range depending on the district how much that meter just thinking about meter rates in how much the space is worth and the bayview, for example, i know our meters on average collect about $20 a day. so that would come out to $706,000 a year and value would be $25,000 a year.

i know that's not quite the answer to your question, but in terms of meter recovery, those are some kind of a scale of what those take in today or would have. >> supervisor peskin: i appreciate that. and, by the way, i do have the answer because jeff tumlin did the median answer and you're absolutely right ms. munowich different parts of the city present different rates. but, mr. eagan, i am not only chagrin by the fact you dumped this on the committee at the last minute, but your analysis is deficient inso faras, you don't tell us and the answer is about $4,800 a meter citywide and they are higher in other parts of the city and lower in

other parts of the city, but your analysis respectfully through the chair is deficient, sir, and late. >> i would accept, supervisor, that it's not something we considered in our report. we did not unlike other reports attempt to fully quantify all the economic impact. for example, shared spaces might very well affect property value one way or the other. we didn't do that analysis either. we didn't say what's the total citywide job impact of having shared spaces or not. we didn't even try to project how many shared spaces are going to persist or how many new will be done each year. it's an extremely complicated topic. we've produced the report we did because we were confident in the findings that i already shared with you and that they might be of interest to the decision makers. if there are other items or aspects of the economic impact, you would also be interested in, i fully understand that.

we just don't have that for you at this time. >> i think if you had submitted them respectfully, timely, we could all have thought about it and the public could have addressed it during public comment. but i would like to go back to the much more conservatory thoughts that i had early on. thank you, madam chair for allowing me to express my deep chagrin with mr. eagan and the controller's office over what i consider to be extremely unprofessional behavior. i think that we have to be -- i had a very good talk with robin ibad and the father of parklets mr. power on friday with my staff and as i said earlier, i think that -- i don't think we're very far apart at all.

i think we all admitted to one another and i am admittedly apart of this mr. ibad, i am one of the people and i hope that each and every one of my colleagues were one of the people who encouraged the sfmta and dbw and the planning department to permit these things double fast in real time during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. i push for them in vacated bus stops that are coming back. i've pushed for them everywhere i could because my friends and neighbors and their employees were withering on the vine. the world is changing very

quickly and i think we have to reassess that and one of the things that mr. ibad, you and mr. power said to me was that we all and appropriately so as the government turned a blind eye to certain aspects of these shared spaces. aspects relative to our collective shared commitment to vision zero. we all know that there are many of these spaces that are right on corners that in the proceeding number of years, we actually turned in to red zones so it would be safer for pedestrians. they're now as a matter of fact more dangerous today than they were prior to our putting them

in and i think, mr. ibad and mr. power without putting words in your mouth, what you said to me on friday is those spaces are going to have to come out. i think we all permitted spaces in this hilly city on slopes that are not a.d.a. accessible and can never be made a.d.a. accessible and they ultimately are probably going to have to come out. what you told me, mr. ibad, on friday that you were actually feel truthing this and you're a couple of weeks out from knowing how many can be modified. how many can instantly be permanently permitted. how many are going to have to be removed. and so as we are recovering, as we're getting back to the new normal, i think that we need truth in advertisement.

i think -- and, by the way, i love the permanent spaces, i want them to be permanent we can talk about all of those and i want to be the first to say that a lot of work and very good policy thinking has gone into these 75 pages. really, a remarkable body of work and i don't want to be the enemy of the good, but i do want the city to say 10% of these are going to go because they're dangerous or because they're not a.d.a. accessible and i think we should be honest about that upfront and i think you told me you're a couple weeks out from finishing that survey. so those are the big thoughts that i wanted to leave my colleagues with on this panel. i think that's the right way of going about it.

i would be happy to leave my house and walk two and a half blocks to what i see at 1300 montgomery. i am delighted. the music is great. the vibe is great. the business is great. i want that to stay now and forever, but i think we have ton honorous. we have to let them amoretize their investment for a period of time. that is the right way for the government to go about this in my humble opinion. having said that, mr. egan, the next time you give this committee report, how about you do it on a thursday or friday. thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston, did you have any further comments? >> supervisor preston: i do.

thank you madam chair. you know, i think i'm going to share some thought as opposed to a lot z of back and forth and questions because i have a feeling we will be seeing there again in committee and i really just want to kind of lay out some of the issues that i'm hoping we can work on between now and then if that ends up being the preference of the -- of my fellow committee members to have this heard again. i do want to say this is a 75-page piece of legislation i would share supervisor peskin's positive words on to those who were involved in preparing this. i think it's a lot of work, a lot of thought, and a lot of things that were done well in here and there are still some things i think we need some

work on. come to a land use committee it would be advanced on its first reading committee and so i just want to caution if folks who have made comments around how long the process has been to the board of it's going to take at least another session and we'll see how long. i do think, you know, just to flag a few issues, one i think we all have our eye and a commitment to making sure these don't just lapse. so there's no june 30th deadline i'm aware of. at least the shared spaces that we advocated for so much in our district. from my understanding has been

extended to december 31st. i believe that's the available option for folks and i think depending on our time frame in moving the legislation, we may need to look at something that's out further. one of the things that i'm curious to hear from staff is just around what the lead-up time is for once this is finalized. i'm assuming we have a final package that gets board approval. how many months it takes for them to implement this program and that's really a question of outreach and getting applications in and so forth, but that i think will determine whether we need another extension while we're trying to finalize this. i think that i've raised the public access issues and want to continue to engage around

the public parklet program. i think we have to look at the facts. there was never a reason that program never took off in the way the shared spaces did. one was about $3,000 to do as well as a long wait and not in the middle of a global pandemic where everyone had to be moving their business outside. so i think it's kind of apples and oranges to say there was only a certain number before there were 1900 of the current shared spaces and, therefore, one's a superior model to the one before. is to hear what the experience, what would it look like to do more like the parklet model with public access or frankly the middle model that you laid

out around the movable commercial parklet model. as i said before, right now is structured, everyone's going to do the full commercial parklet, everyone's going to do the most control. so i think that remains park let is not a viable model and what would it take a few other thoughts and again, i'm just really going to refrain and ask for comments and go a long time and i think we'll be back meet between hearings on these things. i just want to lay out some of the things that i will be looking to talk with the

propotentials about in the up coming weeks. i think that i'd really like a better sense of how the program prioritizes equity and i think there's apart of the equity analysis that relates to public access versus nonpublic which is looking at the demographics of who the patrons are at, you know, an outdoor eating establishment, versus the general public. so, again, i think it relates to the question of how available are these spaces to the public and i think part of the equity analysis has to look at who gets to use the spaces and, i would suspect there's quite a difference if you have it for public use or anyone can grab a sandwich or chess board

or whatever instead of a table and use it versus folks who can -- it depends on the establishment, but some places are certainly more limited to folks who can sort of pay the entry fee. the issues around a.d.a.s that have been raised, clearly, there needs to be more consultation with senior disability action and one of the presentations, the full presentation that struck me is that the current program i believe 29% of the pending a.d.a. complaints remain open, but not resolved. that was a staff that concerned me and i do understand some of it is just a scramble to get this going. get this going and permit them, but i think the ada issues are

real and i would like to know more about why almost a third of the a.d.a. complaints remains open. on the fee issues, i'm interested in a better understanding of what the processes for setting and adjusting the fees initially and going forward. who will have the power to set those fees. i think this is not about only money and relief for small businesses, but it's also as i mentioned earlier about what model of parklet or shared space we are incentiveizing through our structure. i think there are some issues around how this interacts with our transit first policy that i think there's been some thinking about in particular the future of shared spaces in bus stops which we've allowed to some extent in the pandemic. but, obviously, going forward, that's problematic. but also and same with street

closures on some of the buses in our district. but when the 21 haze comes back, we've got some big issues on whether that is able to coexist with that shared space or will need to be moved so i think that needs to be part of our analysis here. as well as looking at transit and bike lanes and whether we are effectively moving some of those off of commercial corridors in order to make room for this or not. some of the issues that were raised around neighborhood i will not repeat. making sure tenants in surrounding buildings, not just the property owners have a say. it's one that i think is

important as well as looking at the seven-daytimeline. i'm all for expediting this. seven days is a very short window to do. i think there's some serious issues around ongoing inspections, how often those will occur. there's some serious issues around the temporary sites and shared spaces sites and i think we have a lot of work to do to build confidence frankly in the safety and have seen some examples with complaints really going weeks and weeks without being addressed.

i think really the final point that i'd like some clarity is the final issues that the city for business issues on the temporary program and also just going forward. if someone gets injured in a parklet or shared space under the permanent program from the current balance of risk there. i hope the committee members and madam chair shares my sentiment of bringing this back to committee and have time to

work on it. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam chair. really want to first start by appreciating most would have to take time from their business schedule to call in today and all the callers that called in today. i think all the calls were extremely important. but i will say that i think often as we do, sometimes in government, we need to get out of our own way. sometimes we need to really do our best to just listen to be impacted the most. have done a good job of when we were responding for instance to the communities that were most impacted by covid. those in the black and brown

community, we listened to them extensively as we were crafting our responses to covid. we listened as we talked to folks on the street as we were crafting a program. those particularly on the drivers of the front lines of the muni buses or the front line grocery store clerks. in this instance, i think we need to do a better job and work our best to listen to the small business owners. they're the ones that truly in my opinion, in so many ways makes san francisco special, makes san francisco the place that people want to visit and it's what makes san francisco unique. so i want to start by saying that. i do want to appreciate a

number of shared spaces. there are some that won't be service was decreased. and gradually faded out. so, you know, the idea if there's a long term or immediate construction work how that impacts the shared space and the public right of way. these are some of the things i talked about with mr. powers. i talked about with mr. ibad over a period of time. so i know there were a number of extents that were made. it might be helpful to see mr. powers is in the queue. maybe he can respond to some of these things. i think it will not have anyone pay for the fees until 2023 if i'm correct. those that can't be adapted will be phased out over time.

those in bus stops will be again adjusted and phased out over time. be made aware in the permit itself. i just want to give mr. power the opportunity to jump in and answer some of the questions or respond to some of the things that were talked about here. are you there? okay. >> i'm here. >> supervisor safai: through the chair if that's okay with you, madam chair. >> chairman: go ahead, mr. powers. >> first of all. thank you, supervisors for hearing this item today. many small businesses in the neighborhood are calling to express their opinion one way or another on this matter. we have been working robin and i and many others for well over

six months we would get concrete feedback, concrete recommendations concrete amendments and with the exception of what we just heard today. we don't know what it is that this board would like us to do. so i think on i would and perhaps this is how the committee is being run today, but we have, you know, robin ibad has answers to many of the questions that you raised. if you would like to hear from him, i think he has solid answers. we walked through those same questions on friday. we have thought a lot about this program, a lot of work has gone in that may not be on the surface and to the extent that you would like to hear answers to your questions and concerns, we have staff here that are very well equipped to provide answers and to have a answer to

what we know what you would like us to do. after that, it's difficult for us to make changes to this program. so now we can have a little more of a dialog what you would like ugh to do. >> chairman: supervisor safai, you still have the floor, did you want to ask specific questions and continue this? and then i see two of my colleagues also have their names in the queue. again. so, go ahead, finish, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: it would be good to hear some answers from mr. ibad some of the ideas or answers you had if it is

something that would be conflicting with construction related work in the right of way. how all those things interact and let me just say one last editorial. i just want to say with respect to this work, m.t.a.'s never had a problem with removing parking spaces. just putting it out there and being honest and straight forward. so let's not make this about we're losing parking spaces. yes, supervisor peskin, we are potentially losing revenue, but there's revenue to be gained in terms of the economy. i know you weren't arguing the opposite. i think you were arguing for just give us a number so we can make a perspective and how it impacts the mta. if mr. ibad can answer those questions and maybe some of the others he heard from supervisor

preston. i think it would be good to hear some of those answers on the record today. >> robin, can you answer the questions? >> absolutely. there are quite a number. i think supervisor preston and i think supervisor peskin i think i got good notes. starting with the questions that supervisor safai had just reiterated. >> madam chair, point of order, my hope was to flag issues to like there's a certain amount of work that has to happen including consultation with other groups i am very specific number of questions on each of those. if we want to go hopefully we

can engage on a number of things. >> chairman: and i have a number of questions as well, supervisor preston. i always as a colleagues let my colleagues go first included our invited supervisors. i did intend for the question to be raised. i didn't necessarily want, you know, to go to the back and forth, but supervisor safai did ask the question. so i wanted to let, you know, the specific question that supervisor safai asked because he is, you know, invited guest in this meeting he has to be apart of. but i don't intend this to be an exhaustive back and forth because i think we have a list

of things and we still have more that supervisor safai still has not asked and i haven't asked as well. so i think that all three of the members of this committee have stated that we want to give this a little more time i'm sorry. this is a question to mr. ibad. >> thank you, chair melgar. so there are many cases in which current existing temporary emergency shared spaces may need to be moved or discontinued. so just absolutely want to reiterate that visibility at our crosswalks, you know, that's a simple and very straight forward requirement that during the pandemic and our quick build to kind of phase has been compromised in

some situation. there's different strategies for amealuating that and it's physical extent to create where bus service, transit service is being reinstated. of course, those transit stops will resume their use as boarding areas that are clear allowing for commuters to get on and off of our public transit. you know, there is also, of course, infrastructure where we do have sewer, water, repaving work projects that wait for no pandemic. and have been in the queue for years and so certainly as those projects move forward, we will be in touch.

our implementation crews will be in touch about construction coordination to minimize disruption and impact as we normally would when those projects take place as well as for new inbound applications that come in. it's customary for us to run all of those locations, you know, against the city's database of capital projects to ensure we're not giving someone a permit to install something on a street that's going to be repaved in a few months. there's a statue i believe it's six months out. so you apply for a permit and the structure is arise within the next six months. that's how we can do it now. with our current program, the provisions of this, we tried to create more options for sponsors to have more flexibility about the kinds of build outs that they install on

the streets. the little parklets. one of the reasons we conceived that was to provide an option for folks to pop up even when you might have a capital project coming down your street that precludes you from doing something that's more fixed. so i know supervisors, we didn't want to get into a back and forth but a lot of the issues that have been raised high level staff have thought very carefully about and we do have solid solutions and answers anticipating those candid solutions everything up and down from requiring why are public noticing who we're seeking notice from, residents as well as ground floor businesses and everything else. so looking forward to providing more specific clarity around those details which, again, they are encoded in this thing, they are embedded in the

legislation. he's turned off his camera. >>. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: okay. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, before supervisor safai leaves because we had this conversation a couple of days ago the impression that there were 2,100 that had blossomed during the pandemic citywide. wasn't that the number that you. >> supervisor peskin: you and i were both under the same impression and when i met with mr. abad and mr. power on friday because that was kind of

the number mr. abad, does that sound about right relative to the representations that you made on friday and the representations that you made in writing today? >> yeah. supervisor. i think it depends on what shared spaces we're talking about. are we talking about all permits when we had our briefing this past friday. as of today, what we have are about 1,632 active curb side not all of those applications over the course of the last ten months have stayed in c2.

many of them have discontinued. be installed because of the unfortunate reality that some of our businesses are ending up shuttering. and speaking specifically active curb side spaces as of today, the number that we have in our agency team is 1, 632. >> supervisor peskin: okay. i super appreciate that. on friday which was about 96 hours ago, it was 1,200, 1,600. and a large factor below and certainly presumably would affect the thinking that mr. egan based his economic analysis on. but putting all of that in the parking lot, the representation that you made to the supervisor on friday was that you were in

the middle of ground truthing the actual spaces that needed to go, needed to be modified. that can be permitted on the spot and you told me that finishing that effort would be a few weeks out. can you speak to that further, through the chair. >> chairman: go ahead. >> yes. absolutely. we are starting our inner agency team. we know from permanent intake data, you know where everyone said they were going to be, how many parking spaces and how many parking meters they were going to take up and so as part of the quality control. we know for example where are people? are they in a red zone or a

stop sign. so that work is we want to start that early. one question -- >> supervisor peskin: you already started that and you were a couple weeks done from finishing it is what you told me on friday. >> the city staff team is in the process of collecting all of that data. so it's going to take us awhile to do it. the project has initiated. >> supervisor peskin: i did not mean to interrupt you, sorry. please proceed. >> part of what's come up early in this call are questions about really what it takes to transfer this huge population to a set of you might say hastily issued permits into ones that are codified. we have to not only verify locations and appropriateness of locations bouncing all of

the considerations that monica talked about earlier. the permission of yellow zones, meter and short term parking on the blocks, but then also investigating the state of all of the sites as well. you know, how compliant are they and really getting a sense of magnitude of how much capital work overall folks really need to undertake and so that is a massive undertaking that will certainly take through the rest of the summer, but in terms of the inventory on corridors that work has. we've already started that because there's no time to lose. even though the shared spaces portfolio dynamics and we're still accepting applications for temporary shared spaces w-we want to go out and collect

this data as soon as we can. >> chairman: are you done, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no i'm not possibly done. i've barely gun. on friday you told me you're going to conclude the survey in a handful of weeks. now you're telling me it's the end of this summer. which is it? >> the survey. let me check with our staff team on when the location survey will be completed. we talked about a location of feasibility that we have to follow up on. >> chairman: supervisor, please finish. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, no i'm not finished. >> chairman: i'm asking you to let mr. abad finish because he

was answering your question. >> supervisor peskin: okay. go ahead. >> i'm done supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: i thought he was done. look. what i really think and let me go back to what i said earlier. i want truth in advertising i want to make a permanent program. i want to tell people who are going to have to spend massive amounts of more money that we're going to have to spend it as we're going to over time stop turning a blind eye that we're going to have to yank him out what i was told is that you would have a sense of that in the next few weeks. >> with regard to the location,

we will have a better sense of that with regard to the physical state. that's a much larger project for interagency enforcement and staff. and that's one of the reasons, that's one of the drivers for having these codified provisions in place as soon as possible. the sooner that we can be articulate and supervisor preston had alluded to this earlier, the sooner we can have these codified regulations and provisions in place. you know, we can point to something very clearly that says your site needs to comply with these specific provisions and here's how long you have to do it. and so the legislation is currently written says that folks will have until the end of the calendar year. in that intervening period, there is a ton of work for monica and i to do with our teams.

to do and on that site provision, work has to happen for folks to be informed and equipped with the knowledge to be compliant. you know. >> supervisor peskin: are you done? >> yes, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: i've got the legislation before me. what is the december 31st date? can you -- 75 pages of legislation. but can you direct this committee to where that six-month period is, please? >> absolutely. so if you direct your attention to administrative code 94a, i believe it's section either 10 or 11 and let me just pull up -- >> supervisor peskin: wait just a hot second here and that would be version 3, right? >> correct.

that would be version 3 that would be used on 5.4. >> supervisor peskin: that would be i'm pretty sure, okay. you've got a page number, my friend? >> i'm scrolling through right now. 94a 11, page 45. >> supervisor peskin: i'm getting there. >> i've got that scroll wheel. >> supervisor peskin: okay. 94a, 11. summital. i'm now on page 46.

>> let me see. >> supervisor peskin: i can read it out loud. >> supervisor, if you -- >> supervisor peskin: suba, sub 1. >> if you scroll to the top of page 48. >> chairman: supervisor, you know, it's 7:00. i don't want to take up a lot of time scrolling through the language. if there's a question that we can answer while we continue the meeting -- >> supervisor peskin: okay. i see the integration section that 9411 expired by operation of law on january 1st of 2023. is that what you're referring

to? i don't see december 31st in 2021. that's what you're saying, but i don't see it. >> you are correct, supervisor. what we -- i had a lapse in remembering where this provision is. it's currently in our sort of draft regulations where the date that we are giving everyone to comply with their permits. so -- >> supervisor peskin: mr. abad, you just got me and then i will relinquish the floor to what i think is the right thing to do because legislation all 75 pages of it actually sets forth all of these because the number of the department is ranging from s.f.m.t.a. to you name it who

can prom ill gate their own relations. i would respectfully suggest to the chair and to my other eight colleagues who are not on this panel that you promolgate those things now and dump those in this legislation because you're making representations that actually don't exist, but they may exist that's not the way this supervisor wants to dispose of this matter. i think we have time and i want to drill down in that as my last question. do you think that on june 30th all of these parklets are going to cease to exist. do you believe that to be true? >> no, in fact our staff teams are extending shared spaces

through the end of the year along the transition timeline that i have narrated earlier while cod if i indication is enacted so there's overlap to get people from the temporary version of their permit that can't happen overnight over one day. what our team has put together is a transition plan that again spans the time that legislation is enacted say this summer for the next six months over through december. that gives us time to grant funds. that gives us time to do the public education and marketing that i had talked about so that folks can get off of a

temporary permit that expires on december thirty-onest and on to a codified one that should be available the provision should be available this summer. >> supervisor peskin: by the way, i am pro foundly confident that we are going to land this plane smoothly and correctly. i am profoundly confident that you and your colleagues and a number of departments are going to ground truth this and i am confident that in the interim, we're going to charge none of these organizations that are recovering from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, a single penny. not your $6,000 we're going to charge them absolutely nothing. that is one supervisor's opinion. i mean it sincerely. you guys have put a ton of

thought and work into this and you've come to the legislative branch we've got to deal with those that nobody in a wheelchair. the a.d.a. came for a reason. it was part of the movement and justice and we've got to get it right we've got to figure out the money part of it. right now we're going to subsidize this and we're going to figure out which ones are creating dangerous situations at corners. let's figure that out what regulations are going to be promlgated by dpw and the sfmta. before this board passed a

piece of legislation which is provoking. let's get it right. and there's no imminent threat of danger or displacement or relocation. this is a creation of this government during a pandemic that built on something that mr. power brilliantly thought of when he was a planner in the city department planner thank you for your indull audience. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. i have a things to add to the list and a couple comments as well. first, i want to start by saying thank you and to mr. power for the heroic effort for getting this up and running. i know we have a local writer that i'm a very big fan of

rebecca fillman who wrote a book about how during times of disasters, communities come together and do extraordinary things and i think that's what you guys have done and, you know, while at the beginning, you know, some of these things are kind of hazardous i want to keep it going, i want to this to help our city, not just survive, but thrive in a way that we have known it to be able to do. so the first thing that i think we heard loud and clear was from the senior disability i think supervisor peskin, we're

almost there in terms of taking 12 months. i want to remind my colleagues that one of the things that i have done in my career with the supervisored technical assistance and there's a good reason why we want to not take twelve months and that is about financing. the other thing we've heard during public comment is that people are, you know, $400,000, $500,000 in debt, business debt on their businesses. and, to be able to carry that kind of debt, you know, financially, you do need a certain level of certainty and, do i wish we had a public bank? do i wish we had some other way

to support this kind of debt in our small businesses, yes, i do, right now, what we have is the commercial banking industry and a little bit of the city, but until we solve that issue, we need to be able to support businesses by allowing them to have access to capital to keep their businesses open and in order to do that, they need to have a level of certainty sooner rather than later. i don't think it's okay to say for the next 12 months you're okay and after that, you're not because the $500,000 debt can take 10, 15 years to pay off if you advertise it. how neighbors can weigh in on this. it's not that i'm asking that

neighbors can aprof or disapprove. but i do want to see some rules based on these things have been wonderful. they have allowed our businesses to stay open and they've made our commercial corridors more vibrant, but they have also bothered the neighbors who live there, you know, when they're open past 10:30 and there's noise and the kids can get to bed or there's trucks double parked because we have been thought through about the loading and unloading in residential slash commercial areas and so i do ask that you put a little bit more work into that because i just like most of us who hear from constituents have heard this over and over again. so i want to be able to address it. and, you know, i think that is it for me.

i actually read through the stuff that you have put out and have been communicating with mr. abad this whole time and i am really grateful. i do hope that we can eventually get there, you know, to home base on this one, but i do think it needs a little bit more time. so, colleagues, is anybody ready to make a motion? >> sure. i move to continue. i don't know what the preference of the chair is whether you would continue to call the chair or i believe our next meetings in two weeks so i'd be happy to continue it to that meeting. >> i think if we continue to the call of the chair, we have to notice it again. so i think that i would rather

continue it until june 7th and then if we need to continue but that is what senior disability actions and specifically. >> yeah. and, if i can just clarify does that, i'm happy to make a motion to and we've got a number of communications like senior disability acts. >> chairman: mr. abad has said he has answers to all of these

questions. >> sorry. was that an invitation to speak or to respond. >> chairman: yeah. respond to supervisor peskin. >> no. absolutely. i think two weeks is sensible. it does align with certain groups from what we've heard. we're already in communication and contact with sta. i think we can come back on the 7th on having work with them and others on some of the other issues. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i really think the ground truthing is where the rubber

hits the road. >> chairman: was that a question in. >> supervisor peskin: no. they actually had an idea of how many can be modified or removed which earlier in today's testimony was several months. >> we will have a better sense of that, supervisor, in a few weeks how comprehensive or deep that is. certainly by the 7th, if we come back to committee, we can report more on the status of that. and have a firmer sense of timeline which is something that we've been, ourselves trying to nail down as a staff team. >> chairman: supervisor peskin, mr. ibad, did say earlier that he estimated that about 10% of these parklets would not be able to become permanent because of one issue

or another. you said something like that. but i'm wondering if we hold up the sort of certainty for the rest of these parklets because we don't have all of the data. do we think that that's the right thing to do? >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, mr. abad respectfully gave this super and supervisor safai the impression that there were 2,100 of them. on friday, he thought there were 1,200, and today, monday, he thought there were 1,600. i would think respectfully they have nailed down. so i don't think they actually know what's going on on the ground and i think the decisions that we've made and the regulations that are prom gated that were probably put in the ordinance by the head of the interim director of dpw and

the head of the sfmta actually are going to make this matter more predictable and more stable to the people who we're trying to maintain. and in the interim, they can amoretize their expenses. we will charge them no money and we will figure this out and get it right. but i don't think mr. abad who has moved his numbers around in huge factors. 1600, 2100, respectfully knows what he's talking about, i would suggest we continue this here and get real verifiable data and make our decisions based on that and regulations that are proml gated. that is my suggestion. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor. i would like to continue it until the 7th and that would be

a challenge to the staff to get some of these answers by the 7th and knowing full well how you feel about it, supervisor peskin, is that in two weeks, if we don't have that data, you will feel the same way and probably even more strongly. ms. munowich, i see that your hand is up. did you have an answer to the question that supervisor peskin asked? >> i do somewhat if i can have the opportunity to quickly respond, chair melgar. speaking from the work we do. i just want to speak a little bit more that robin was alluded to was just i'm not sure with the couple weeks or a couple months we'll be able to pull information from our sales force database about permits and permits that may be affected by daylighting in particular, but the survey work is going to be months that

we've been in participation and it will be like you're alluding to supervisor peskin a really important way for us to make the decisions about so it's not something to be rushed. every single block doing the data collection, doing the analysis and so i just want to manage the expectations about the city team that's working on like robin said a moment ago, we have methodology in place. we are waiting to get started on it until we had a more concrete sort of state of conditions. ideally, we may have waited until we had a certainty with the permanent program permit holders would be before doing that analysis. so that analysis is being done on what's on the ground today would start in short order this summer and would be a crisis

undertaking, but a very good investment in time. that's what i wanted to clarify. thank you. >> chair melgar: thank you, ms. munowich. supervisor peskin, should i make a motion. >> supervisor peskin: i will go ahead. let me just one last thought just so we can hopefully be moving forward. when we go through the long list of issues, i know there's a number that i'm sure you can in a few minutes you know, off line and there are others where i feel pretty confident where we'll be able to get there. but i do just want to end where i started in this hearing because i don't know what the pass through is and i just want to elevate on this issue of public access and i will say that the briefing last week,

what's helpful, but not on this issue because i was raising basically the answer to why we were going to a model of mostly fully privateized parklets instead of public access parklets was sort of that was the directive from the mayor and that's what the small business community wants. and i just want to say for speaking just for myself and no other supervisors, that's not enough. like if there's a case to be made and i'm not saying it needs to be made. if there's a case to be made for moving the model all of them. i haven't heard that i'm probably the only supervisor for someone to correct me if i'm wrong i'm about the only

supervisor of course, and who would blame the business owners. about that issue and i feel like that's a major policy shift and if we're going to make that shift in some ways, there's got to be more of an input and rationale. and where i think i feel furthest apart currently. hopefully we can get there. just wanted to identify that and appreciate the time chair melgar, i would like to continue this item to june 7th. >> chair melgar: thank you very much, supervisor preston. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: yes on the motion to continue the matter to the june 7th date,

[roll call] >> chair melgar: thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call the next item. >> clerk: item number four is an ordinance amending the planning, business, and tax regulations and police code for procedures and allow flexibility for neighborhood cultural and entertainment establishments. members of the public who wish to provide public comment please call the number on the screen. (415) 655-0001. press star 3 once to get in the queue. madam chair.

>> chair melgar: thank you, madam clerk. we have laurel from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development here to make a presentation. we also have representatives from the mayor's office, the office of small business and the planning department on stand by for questions. will you please proceed with your presentation. >> i know this is a long meeting today so i really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important piece of legislation with you all. i'm going to begin with a quick overview of how we got here and then i will dive into each aspect of what this ordinance is endeavoring to do. first, framing, we all agree that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. they make up nine out of ten of our businesses and generate tens and billions of dollars in economic activity. we all nose these businesses

were facing challenges before the pandemic. the challenges brought on by online shopping and need to adapt and create experiences. from restaurants about the challenges brought on by delivery apps and ghost kitchens. and we were about the endless delays for small business owners trying to do something as simple as open an ice cream shop. would be managing various stages. we saw sales tax decrease more in san francisco than anywhere else in the state and despite seeing residents, our sales taxes are still down 30% what we were seeing pre-covid. we saw a 61% drop in tourism.

128,000 jobs were lost and only about half of our small businesses re-opened. suddenly, we were doing all of our shopping online. to go into delivery was the only way for businesses to operate. and when businesses were able to operate, the financial burden of operation. because of the shift to work from home. our reliance on international tourism. the city has done a tremendous job of trying to fill the gaps. we have allocated $52.8 million in grants and loans and have already gotten $24 million of those into 1,370 business owners' hands and we have sent more than $19 billion to support our workers. the right to recover program.

the commercial eviction moratorium and we've waived deferred fees. none of this is enough. we must address the bureaucratic system so that more entrepreneurs can take that leap sxl open their businesses in san francisco. in anticipating these severe economic impacts during the pandemic, the economic impact reform was formed. supervisor peskin and preston and mandelman to identify tangible steps. the task force's report made four religiouses specifically related to neighborhood businesses. these recommendations paired with strong message we received from voters with a 61% passage of proposition h is the ordinance before you today. this ordinance is built around

these three organizing principles. first it aims to cut. second, it works to enhance flexibility allowing neighborhood businesses to adapt both for their short-term recover and long-term viability and third, it creates protections and opportunities for arts, by simplifying the process between neighborhood businesses and local talents. performances and art spaces were some of the first and continue to see restrictions as we move beyond the blueprint. so now, let's stick to noo the details. this ordinance permanent uses within 30 days citywide. we know that covid has impacted businesses across the city not just in our neighborhood corridors. the agency construction permit like planning, d.b.i., d.b.h., the entertainment of public works has built the administration system needed

for this review. this ordinance will expand the benefit. reduce of time and cost for applicants and provide the valuable certainty. it also benefits the city by reducing staff time. to make it possible to process permits in 30 days, the ordinance will expand the removal of neighborhood notifications. this will save businesses six to eight weeks to open their doors. not all uses are permitted and there is value in seeking public comment input on these issues. however, there's also need to create more certainty for business owners and neighbors alike. to do this, the proposal will expand the access to include bars and retailers with 11 to 21 locations worldwide. this expedited processing

provides businesses with a certainty of a 90 day use timeline. the inclusion of small formula retailer. our research suggests that more than 90% of formula retailers outside of the small retail category and i want to be clear where formula retail is not permitted, it remains not permitted. we can all think of a use in our neighborhood that has been a persistent vacancy. perhaps a beloved old bar or movie theater. efforts to find that after three years spaces abandoned the approval and the conditions that we as neighbors participated in placing on that property before. this claus instituted a number of years ago and was aimed at weeding out uses deemed undesirable.

abandonment for nonformula retailers and help neighbors reactivate these eleven neighborhood spaces. removing the abandonment clause and getting occupied more quickly when the new business is the same use as previously approved by abandoned to you. next, look at projects with matching historic windows or removing nonhistoric features. the historic preservation unanimously recommended removing noticing requirements and permits of minor alterations. there have been three requests for reviews out of a thousand permits reviewed over the past nine years and appeals would still be made to the board of appeals. communities are often highly invested in creating a neighborhood commercial district. neighborhoods have gone through a lengthy process to explore what a healthy balance of business is for their specific neighborhood and developed any number of ways to measure them.

one legacy measurement is the concentration based on lynnier analysis within 300' of the business. currently, a restaurant are bar, or fine for additional use authorization is required to do this by walking down the street subtracting garages, residential driveways. producing these calculations can be costly and comes with substantial margin of error. if the use isn't clear to an applicant, they make mistakes. linear calculations do not represent how we may feel or experience our street scape. if i'm a neighbor concerned about a bar moving into my neighborhood, the linear frontage of my coffee shops doesn't address the concerns. this change will not impact suds nor will it change or form late retail in the upper market

street. to support businesses and adapting by providing new abilities of operation. simple seemingly nonimpactful changes. the proposal and places them within the general resource category. change of use permits for similar uses. so, for example, if i own a t-shirt shop and i want to add screen printing, i would no longer have to go to planning to get a change of use. or, if i was a gym and i wanted to pivot, i could do so without going to the process to get repermitted by the planning department. on the grounds floor, this change will not trigger any changes of per missbility of cat boarding or gyms.

it will make trade shops more where cu is currently required. food entrepreneurs have long struggled the lack of availability and many restaurants operate on very low margins. as opposed to just limited restaurants as it stands today. this expansion will give existing businesses and entrepreneurs more opportunities to share space and operating costs. we don't believe the existence of lying on a shelf in a restaurant should preclude an industry. and this change will offer another path to recovery. outdoor space has been a lifeline for neighborhood businesses during the pandemic and will continue to be through the recovery. many customers will continue to feel safer in outdoor settings. as a result, this ordinance proposes that we principal alley promote roof top uses.

this means that the hours of operation would not exceed 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. that the use would not be associated with the bar. when it is associated with a restaurant, it would require that the patrons all be seated and if alcohol is served, it would need to happen in service. uses would be further limited by the provisions in the upper stories and finally, any roof top operations would be subject to all of the relevant health and safety requirements that currently exist. next, the ordinance will allow accessory dwelling unitings to be allowed in ground spaces to a minimum of 25' of depths. the code currently allows a regular unit to take commercial space so long as the ground floor makes the active use permits. under the same provisions as it regularly exists. this provision would only apply

to mixed use buildings, but include mixed use and residential and commercial. large persistent vacancies that retail spaces and may give property owners more adaptability while producing more housing units. we all know the entertainment experience continue to face the most restrictions to operations. unfortunately, we know that the current economic realities would unclear land use authority. as such, this proposal allows for an applicant to provide sufficient evidence that the premise has been in regular

operation for 10 years. the decision would be appealable to the board of appeals ensuring continued protections for neighbors. we also know that some of these transitions take time. requirement for c.u. to remove nighttime entertainment use. many of which are irreplaceable or difficult to recreate. the c.u. for removal provides an opportunity to simply pause and discussion the elimination during this time of recovery and is supported by the venue coalition. this ordinance proposes this as a unique intervention and as such this provision would only remain in effect for three years. during covid, we have seen businesses forced to move outside to continue operations. the emergency of the pandemic has allowed the emergency department to influence in the interest of preserving economic

activity. as we look towards recovery, there is interest to continuing to allow activity. this provision will give more flexibility to businesses as they recover from the pandemic. next, we look to address the added burden placed on individual hosting parties at the southeast communities facility. required only of individuals using the southeast facility. the facility has a place of entertainment if the staff i don't ever see these events. to go and pull a $63 permit. community members don't need this extra layer of oversight.

the next these permits allow entertainment. by eliminating the requirement for a business to get a permit for the addition of a single unamplified performer. if i'm a greek restaurant on greek independence date, i would no longer need a permit. the proposal further addresses live performance by allowing applicants to request permission. currently, applicants may only request operations until one thousand p.m. in year one and they must since we allow the applicants to request this later in year one and the commission continues to choose to further to limit the hours.

in practice, a request to extend to one thousand one hundred p.m. a year or two later has never been denied. and, finally, as directed by the voters, the proposal creates way to incorporate. this proposal allows the director to issue a 60 day live limited performance so an applicant is permitted a pop-up from the planning department. director would be required to make sure it satisfies all the permit requirements. but the permit would not require a hearing. this permit the proposal will row move the planning requirement to expose the predetermined conditions of entertainment uses. this will give the planning commission flexibility on what

is considered to condition to the land. the planning commission would still have full authority they see fit. but the planning commission imposed conditions that may be immilktive. allowing the two commissions to work in concert and addressing such and, finally, to support the desires of nonprofit businesses but want to expand arts and activities in the neighborhood which are currently limited to twelve times in a calendar year. the proposal maintains the entertainment's authority to conduct official review and make any determination and neighborhood compatibility. as neighborhoods look to bring visitors back as apart of the recovery, this flexibility will

make it possible to create unique events while drawing customers into the community. this measure's designed specifically to reduce the time and cost. and endeavors to provide access to entrepreneurs with less start up capital to begin businesses in san francisco. we are already seeing strong evidence of this working. which 50% identifying. 35% immigrants and 35% limited or lgbtq. nevertheless, we know there are still challenges to opening a business and this proposal is just one step and that's why we continue to invest in small businesses and the community which is our focus on neighborhoods. we recognize the limits of land use regulation as well as the importance in regulations working in tandem with our programming to support vulnerable communities. we warn with 45 neighborhood organizations and community benefit districts to ensure we

are meeting business owners where they are. we will continue to work with these organizations to support neighborhoods and business supports. prioritizing support that ensures our business community continues to grow with new and diverse entrepreneurs from within our community. this legislation is just one piece of that comprehensive intervention and support that our small businesses need. we work closely with community on this legislation from pulling many of these ideas from the recommendations generated from the 100 plus of the recovery task force to addressing challenges that have been brought to us by our businesses. so that we can realize wholistic changes. i want to wrap up by clarifying a few items that some have seem

confused about. nor does it allow formula retail. this legislation is not changing production and industrial zoning regulations or protections. it is not changing ground floor zoning tables except in one neighborhood where we make trade shows more permissible. it does not remove sound control and it does maintain due process. this is about providing a level of certainty to small business owners, building owners, and neighbors. this is aimed at the bureaucracy that we put our business through. this is about holding ourselves accountable. the fact of the matter is that only 12% of small businesses think we are supporting them. we must do better and we can do better. this ordinance begins the work to do this. and i'm happy to hear any questions you guys have for us. >> chair melgar: thank you so

much. colleagues. thank you so much, laurel for your presentation. do we have any comments or questions. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. can you just elaborate on the point around formula retail and i appreciate the comment as i understand that this wouldn't allow formula retail where it is banned or eliminate requirement for conditional use where that is required. but i think it does and i just want to make sure i get this right. my understanding is that it creates a new category of 20 or fewer locations and then those, i think the two things that that impacts for those small

formula retail is they have access to the 90 day expedited and then i believe they're also relieved of the application they're believed to do their concentration calculation and analysis when they're seeking conditional use. do i have all that right? >> you do. we are relieving all formula retail concentration, the linear concentration except for in the upper market m.c.. they have a trigger at a certain percentage that changes the recommendation from planning from yes to know and so we retained that piece of the community that the community had written in, but we again don't. we are removing the calculation, and then, yes, they would have access to the

90 daytimeline to get the commission if they had fewer than 20 establishments worldwide. >> supervisor preston: and can you elaborate on the reasoning what's the thinking behind that? >> the concentration calculation. that's related to we've heard from many that it feels like a less meaningful calculation or the type of formula retails, but the number of square feet of the linear frontage does not feel like a meaningful calculation and neighbors and commission often there are other more meaningful measurements that are less administrativy burdensome on planning staff and applicants. >> supervisor preston: so i'm

just trying to understand under this, what's the formula retail business that you can use has to do, if that's not the right analysis, is there a different one that they have to do that gets at the issue of concentration? >> planning's fast. planning or the planner could ask for any other measurement. often times what people do want to see is a number of other retailers in the area, so it's more of a store front count over a certain space and that's a much easier thing to ascertain and would likely often be requested by staff, but would not be man dated at this legislation. >> supervisor preston: okay. could they have just done a lot of work around formula retail. i do think it's a significant factor on conditional use of just the prevalence of formula retail whether it should be calculated or analyzed in a different way is one thing, but

i just want to make sure that it doesn't vanish. it sounds like it's just a request on a case by case basis. if there's a better way to measure that to just substitute that and then have that be required because it's an important part of the analysis even if it's calculated differently. and then, on the other one that you mentioned, what's the thinking around the 90-daytime expedited process of why we would want to take businesses from 11 to 20 store locations. >> we've heard from some that how can we create different

levels and this was our shot at trying to do that saying these smaller retailers may feel less worrisome to community and so by putting them in this expedited lane, they are able to move through, they're often smaller and maybe still don't have the same kind of ability to pay rent for months and months on end, the way that our conditional use process can drive on and so this was our attempt to try to address that. >> chair melgar: supervisor peskin, do you have any questions or comments? >> madam chair, i need to say some words. i think that as with the last item, i'm inclined to wait until after public comment. >> chair melgar: okay. sounds good. madam clerk, can we go to

public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. d.t.a.'s checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please wait to indicate that you system indicates you have been unmuted. it looks like we have twenty-eight listeners with twelve in queue. jim, if you can unmute the first caller, please. 15 in queue. if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> hello, supervisors. david woo. we are part of the race and equity and all planning coalition. this sweeping ordinance does not put equity first in its approach to helping our small businesses and the south of market recover. there must be more robust community engagement led by the principal of an equitable recovery that have suffered and

continue to suffer from this pandemic. while there are some cases of this ordinance, it could be beneficial. other aspects work to deregulate and remove community protections in the name of recovery. we must make sure that the harmful aspects of this do not move forward thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> hi, this is ben blieman. tonight, i'm speaking as a civilian. we all know for years small businesses have been suffocating by the small business application.

and how we can help them thrive in the city. i just want to point out how revolution they're this will be for bringing back art and entertainment in the city. we have created a system where having people perform music makes no sense to the point where we've suffocated the ability for artists to find paying gigs in the city and for them to employ them. this takes a big chunk out of that and allows common sense changes and for businesses just to make financial sense as well for their own passions and supporting art. so i am speaking up for much in favor of this. there's a few things in there that the think the business community is totally willing to

negotiated. >> as we seek to bring workers back to the office. and more than anything, what