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

want to do is to entice workers to come back to the office because they miss socialization opportunity and those businesses can with workers downtown conserve to liven up the community. it's critical that we work quickly and proactively to provide these downtown again. small businesses are the cultural economic and cultural backbone and i'm happy to say this legislation will bring certainty to our businesses. we're also looking forward to supporting our cultural institutions and the arts which we know will make our city great again. so thank you and look forward to working with you in the future. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker please. >> good evening, supervisors. newly formed equity and

planning coalition. we share the belief the diversity of our local small businesses help keep our commercial corridors affordable and uplift the and small businesses. we're very concerned about the impacts of certain elements of the small business recovery act which we believe may very well fuel economic recovery in san francisco by leaving out vulnerable small businesses and open the door to more gentrification. this proposal will likely help some existing businesses with sever of its provisions and we can move this forward. it contains far too many conflicts and harmful strategies. at the expense of small businesses. for example, incentiveizing landlords to convert the majority of lower retail space into higher value market rate apartments. retail and removing some

noticing requirements. this legislation does little to address the real problem in our commercial corridors right now. retail and personal services have been primarily closed for more than a year, have built up massive debt and low income corridors are now facing an uphill battle. we would like to see this problem addressed and funded legislation. we urge you to work through the sensitive items one at a time as individual pieces of separate legislation. and ensure an equitable recovery for small businesses and commercial corridors. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening supervisors. i'm stan heinz. planning and zoning for the public zones. first off, let me be clear. we strongly support efforts to

help our small businesses survive and recover. it's been a tough time for everyone. they need our help. we're concerned about unintended consequences. these planning code amendments would undo a single legislative sweep many protections for small businesses and neighbors and neighborhood commercial districts. while we support the intent of these amendments to help small businesses, we're concerned that they seep and outdoor am li fied sound that would weigh permit controls on temporary late night permit uses for up

to 10 years that allow nighttime entertainment and close enough to residential notification and comment. formula retail to 20 establishments and expand the eligibility for expedited processing: [please stand by]

-- we represent cafés in san francisco and we are still struggling as many heard earlier today. we strongly supported the prop h ballot measure this past november, which i believe that this legislation builds upon. many of these things were already allowed in some of the neighborhood corridors is my understanding. this particular legislation is positive for restaurants in a few ways, most notably expanding the over-the-counter permits to principally permitted small businesses city-wide which is allowing for what we need in our decimated areas. the downtown and the union square and the mus coneconi

area. and it provides opportunities for restaurants to legally cater out of their kitchens which is not legally permitted before, this will help to provide employment and revenue generating opportunities to an industry and to the people that have taken the largest hits over this past year. and we urge that you consider supporting this item. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your remarks. next speaker, please. we have 16 left in the queue. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. i'm calling in to support the small business recovery act. now more than ever we need legislation that supports our small business community and this people legislation supports businesses in many ways, by streamlining the permitting requirements, allowing more flexibility for business activities and supports our arts and activities. so i urge your support for this

item. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. hello -- >> caller: good evening. sorry? >> clerk: go ahead. >> caller: hi, supervisors, good evening. jeffrey smith, and the erase inequity. i live in the richmond district where the community like most in the city thrives when our small businesses are successful. the pandemic has been rough. so our small locally owned businesses need to be able to have support for the recovery. our city government has an important role to play in making sure that recovery is equitable, so we don't end up with commercial areas inaccessible for people with low and very low incomes in our communities. however, as this legislation as

written will cause great harm to small locally owned businesses. this legislation also undermines ongoing discussions about how to ensure equitable recovery for our neighborhoods. the planning coalition urges you to not recommend this legislation to the full board. we urge to you make equity adjustments to proposal in these small business recovery act until more community engagement has taken place, and critical issues have been resolved, to point us in the direction of an equitable recovery. this legislation is rushed through the process by repeated attempts for more engagement on its problematic provisions. the neighborhoods, especially low-income and bipoc communities, need to tailor their recovery plans to the need of their residents, small businesses and the health of their overall cultural eco-systems. some aspects of the legislation do work, such as replacing

nighttime entertainment use and that require conditional use and the non-amplified music at events that need a permit. and speeding up the principally permitted business permits to 30 days and extending entertainment space hours to 11:00 p.m. and setting aside what doesn't work for future and separate consideration. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, everyone. my name is tiffany hagi, and i'm a housing rights staff attorney for asian americans advancing justice, and also a member of the race and equity and all planning coalition. we overral concerns with this legislation. it's 70 pages and it proposes a one-size-fits-all solution to something that should be

tailored to each individual community. there are definitely some helpful portions of this ordinance that should be moved forward, but there are also too many pieces that don't even really fit together and that affect too many facets of our city crammed in and there isn't enough time to address them all in the short comment time. there's no clear deadline to pass all of this right now so we shouldn't rush forward and leave people behind, especially the people who are historically left behind -- low income, and bipoc communities, etc. and one issue that i'm particularly concerned about is the proposal to convert commercial space into market rate use. this benefits landowners and threatens small businesses. we certainly need more housing but a more equitable approach might be to consider options such as live/workspaces and permanent spaces for low-income people. this legislation doesn't do a lot to address the principal problems in our corridors, retail and personal services have been closed for more than a

year and have built up massive debt and are facing an uphill battle to stay open and to return to prosperity. this should be addressed in legislation to help with small businesses. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. my name is greg musai and i'm calling in to ask the land use committee to reject the small business recovery act legislation until it provides a clear and equitable plan for helping the ecosystem, including cultural institutions and non-profits as well as residents. the legislation will speed up new businesses while removing community notification and processes. these new businesses will be often corporations and upscale projects to cash in on the areas of the city weakened by the crisis if we don't add

structural equity lens to the legislation by tailoring it individually to the needs of our most vulnerable neighborhoods and the small businesses, we couldn't have known how inequitable that the recovery will turn out to be. and we just are asking, you know, to hopefully to see that we have a plan, whether it's a community process, involved with people in the neighborhoods tailored to their specific needs. so i just ask that the committee reject the small business recovery act as it is. thank you for considering my concerns. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: oh, hi, my name is margaret sanchez and i'm a third generation san franciscan and a founding member of guiya 24.

i don't see how this is beneficial. we don't need more nightclubs, especially on 21st street, it's not a nightclub type of neighborhood, so i don't see how this would help. i also have concerns about removing neighborhood notification. part of what makes our neighborhoods so charming is the culture, the latino culture and if we don't know what is going on it will be gentrified, and that's not good for anybody. and they love the mission district as it is because of the guidelines that have been created by the mission to preserve it. i also have concerns about the historic preservation commission not able to review the changes. i see this as just loopholes for big money to just come in and to take over and ruin it. and i know that there was talk earlier about all of the tourism that has gone away. one of the biggest draws of san francisco is the mission district and not just to visit, but to live in, and if you want to change it, it's not going to be what it was before.

so i definitely do not agree with the recovery and i don't see it benefitting as all. and i don't see how trying to get rid of small businesses and turning them into housing would help. we love what is going on now and i just think that we need to let the mission do what the mission does and to keep it the way that it is because we know what we're doing there and people seem to like it. so if anybody has been there lately you will see that it's vibrant and it's beautiful. so i do not agree with the small business recovery act. it doesn't work for this neighborhood. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. we have 15 left in the queue. >> caller: hello, my name is rolo, and i'm from district 11. you should delay this item respectively with the previous item. i was more in support, but

after, you know, considering the concerns of the p.o.c. sub-committee, or, you know, the districts in san francisco, i feel that this is something that should be delayed and reviewed and come back to the board again. but, you know, kind of like my previous position, i originally was in support of this because it provides an opportunity to preserve the spirit, you know, of small business for this month, kind of like an after-dark edition. i want to keep that in mind going for that and also continue to having san francisco go to some community (indiscernible) with covid vaccination updates for san francisco, there could be an opportunity for like a hot s.f. summer, if you will, some dark in there. but i would say to definitely delay this respectively with the

previous item, but also to echo some type of support for this small business recovery act with some fixation. that's it. and, of course, have a good evening. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. i'm a local musician. and the director of the san francisco women's collective, a street community service. i urge the land use committee to reject the small business recovery act. it has the right name, but it is myopic at best. and it's simply not ready to come out of the oven. please hold this legislation until working people of color and our small businesses have a chance to participate in the process, so that we can have legislation that does support

recovery for all of our small businesses and not predators and speculators. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is marie sorsen, and i would like you to reject this massive 17-part, 70-page document. this is a free-for-all for business. this is not about the pandemic, it's a good excuse, we can now throw the pandemic -- pandemic is the new word for jobs. this is about decimating neighborhood protections. this legislation does little to address the problem in our commercial corridors right now. we would like to see the problem addressed through the neighborhood stabilization

programs with localized legislation funding and technical support. there are so many things wrong with this. please send it back. please start over. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your remarks. next speaker. we have 13 left in the queue. >> caller: hello supervisors. this is sharkey labona, the president of the san francisco small business commission, but today i'm speaking on my own behalf. i'm listening to people say they support small business but they feel that this legislation would hurt small business. i could not disagree more. i'm a small business owner. maybe somebody is interested in what i think. and it's everywhere that we look at unprecedented levels. restaurants and bars are the biggest contributor to unemployment that has hurt minority businesses and minority workers and minority entrepreneurs. small providers have been unable

to operate. entertainment has been crushed out of existence. i was once a major label recording artist, live explainment has not been healthy for a long time and no one has been harder hit by the pandemic so i couldn't believe that anyone would suggest that that this helps musician is a drawback of the legislation? meanwhile, we're losing more businesses every day. how many of these people talk to the business owners as i often do, crying as they're drowning in debt. this legislation makes it easier to try things. it makes it cheaper to start businesses. guess who benefits from that? the people who don't have money the whole reason people without money can't start businesses is because we make it so complicated and expensive that only the people with money can even think about starting a business. i was once one of those people without money. this is analysis paralysis, we're fiddling, and we need to try things and give new

entrepreneurs the ability to try something without having to wait for months, if not years, to see their dreams become reality. businesses are the ones generating the jobs and paying the taxes that help to pay for the city and make it incredible we should be supporting businesses now more than ever. i can't believe what i have been listening to on this call. it's outrageous. please, please support the small business recovery act. >> clerk: thank you. >> if i may interject, sharkey's job is to listen to members of the public and not denounce them. thank you, madam chair. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. kelly hill with u.s.m., and a business owner in the mission. like many folks here, unlike mry lens, i share concerns that are lacking in this legislation.

i want to repeat that neighborhoods, especially low income and bipoc community need to be allowed to tailor their neighborhood recovery plans to the needs of their residents and cultural ecosystems. until there's a more equitable approach to needs of specific neighborhoods with inclusion in drafting the legislation, neighborhoods like the mission should be exempted out of certain provisions. this will come as no surprise to any of you but the prominent land firms are updating their clients ahead of this legislation. i'm looking at one update on one particular firm's website right now and the bullet points are clearly laid out and neighborhood notification and a.d.u. conversions and the list goes on and on. the point of bringing this up is to say that the well heeled folks, the real estate professionals, and those who have gains are getting briefed. the mom and pop businesses here in the mission and potential neighborhood folks hoping to open up a business here are not

in this circle. we're concerned about the a.d.u. conversions, and what opened my eyes to the harm in the provision is when i saw a listing of a four room building in my lot. the real estate language is presented already and the listing lays out the path of taking half of the space to create a fifth floor ground unit as an a.d.u. this will do harm to the 30-year business owner by taking away half of its space. this is made worse because of an expired lease. it's clear that we need to study the negative outcomes of this provision and look for protections and more positive incentives that help, rather than harm. let's work in the community and gather the needs of the local community and move them forward in separate tailored legislation and supportive programming. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you.

next speaker. >> caller: thank you, miss major. the community development center. i want to focus on some of what previous speakers have said, but before that, i do want to thank the staff at oewd for her steadfast, you know, willingness to talk with the community and engage with the community, but i think that the end result that we have today is a legislation that tries to do too many things. it really tries to address some long-standing issues that have to do with how our planning code is written. it also tries to do things that i think that were envisioned in an office by professional planners that don't actually speak with community members. i think that is the problem of the legislation. it tries to do too much, it

tries to address too many things and it tries to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to community planning. we hope that the committee, chair melgar, and the members peskin and preston really take the smart policy approach, which is let's look at what is necessary and needed, and is ready to go that has broad support and that actually helps small businesses. and let's postpone all of the things that only help property owners in this legislation. so i think that it's imperative for us to, just like chinatown, to let neighborhoods, especially low-income and bipoc communities, to go through their own planning processes and make sure that our long-standing

community members and small business owners are protected by zoning that took years and sometimes decades of community struggle. i thank you and i hope to see something move forward. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is maria lamora and i'm a mission descrik native and i'm a 24th street, a district board member. what i would like to say is that the neighborhoods, especially low-income neighborhoods and bipoc communities need to be allowed to tailor their own neighborhood's recovery plans to the needs of their residences -- the residents, small businesses and health of their overall cultural ecosystems. the mission is in process of

expanding its latin cultural district and will already be creating solutions in many of these areas in a 2021 special-use district. they are tailored to the needs of the mission, latino and the immigrant businesses that won't result in additional gentrification. thank you for your time in considering my concerns. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. katherine howard, resident of the wonderfully quiet outer sunset. please oppose this measure. this is a pinata of proposals that is exploding over a surprised public. it was given in a rapid manner, there was no concern about presenting information in a way that was incomprehensible to the average listener and no illustrations.

this proposal opens up the door to gentrification, the loss of the small businesses that make our neighborhoods unique. opening up to nighttime outdoor activities will be a nightmare to residents. 10:00 p.m. is late for people who have to get up to work, and more detrimental to family life is the late-night entertainment to 11:00 p.m. the government talks a good game about families living in the city. do families want to live near rooftop restaurants that carry loud music? the sound will carry further from rooftops than in the streets. and they propose the arrear of commercial spaces, wait, what? the city is saying that commercial lots are too large and to be developed with use. and yet in the last agenda item the city was supposing to give away public streets to businesses who need space? what is the rationale here. all of the elements need to be

worked through one at a time in separate legislation. just as you decided in the item for a longer term plan for protecting all neighborhood businesses, unique business direct character and the rights of local residents should be drawn up and evaluated with stakeholders from all of these groups. please oppose this item. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. we have 13 left in the queue -- i'm sorry, 11 left in the queue >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, message, please pro -- ma'am, please proceed. >> caller: hi, i'm in district 10. and i will start with saying ditto to everything that sharkey laguna said and i'm curious why supervisor peskin calls him out when he clearly said that he was speaking for himself as an individual and not for the office of small business. i am in support of moving forward now. are you simply whether this goes

to the full board and there can be adjustments in the interim? does this body work differently than other legislatures and committees in the u.s.? and it's one of the toughest places to do business in. in these headlines everywhere, we talked about getting it right and it's exhausting. how many of these things possibly are in committee before they go to the full board? can we not employ wording that captures the spirit of what we are speaking while allowing room for the committee, agencies and many commissions to hammer out the details? who is working on this from the office? i'm sure that they can put in wording to make this understandable. and why do we have it a cultural district and close off the traffic, other than muni, so that we can have people walking and singing and dancing in our streets. it's after 8:00 p.m. and this is a committee meeting. how do you do this?

can't we all move forward with the best of intentions and have a mechanism that bears abuse and inequity. you just listened to over a hundred public comments with shared spaces and the count was 4-1 in support of moving forward and you didn't. i don't know how much more public comment is needed on anything ever if this is always the case. can we move forward with all parties acknowledging that we have to all be moving forward? and pressing actual issues, not sterilized ones. i ask us to actually do this. thank you, please vote to move forward. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: i agree with the previous speaker. please vote to move forward. as a small business owner myself, that employs 120 people before covid, when i had to let

everyone go and barely survived with our restaurants, we were in soma, trail hill, north beach, it's already extremely tough to just operate in the city as a small business, let alone to apply for a permit change of any kind. if we could just move forward with this vote and hammer out the final details, that would be great. it's already very difficult to operate here. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. this is the united to save the mission. i own a small business in the mission district and i certainly wish that mr. laguna would do more listening. he clearly, of all of the businesses that he listed, most of them aren't going to be helped by this legislation. of the 17 items in the legislation, only a handful are helpful to the recovery of our small businesses that have struggled during this pandemic.

the remainders are giveaways to landlords, in arguments that you wouldn't want to be against helping our small businesses. this one-size-fits-all legislation has no respect for the cultural ecosystems that exist in low-income bipoc neighborhoods across the city. and i'm tired of listening to all of these highly resourced business owners complaining about not moving legislation forward when they can't think about the mom and pops who are not even remotely close, who don't even have the ability to take out loans. imagine all of the moms and pops that will be displaced by speculators who see the reward of upscale space with a.d.u.s in the back once the current small business has been evicted the critical that we do not repeat the mistakes of the last series of inequitable recoveries by rushing through the negative

unintended consequences for our most vulnerable communities. mr. laguna should listen to our vulnerable communities first. that's what equity looks like. i urge you to send this legislation back to be reenvisioned. if we don't add a structural equity lens to this entire legislation by tailoring it to the needs of our most vulnerable neighborhoods and their small businesses, five years from now no one here gets to say that we couldn't have known how inequitable that the recovery would have turned out and we're sorry what happened to the displacement and the loss of another community. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have 27 in the queue. >> caller: hi my name is jonathan anuga and i'm a small mom and pop business. i own a lounge in soma district

on 9th and fulsome. i want to urge you to move forward and to pass this legislation. it is so incredibly difficult to get anything done here in san francisco. as you have heard today, many small businesses are financially struggling and many provisions in this legislation are building on the passage of prop h. let's just streamline the permitting process and how businesses move forward. it's imperative. one of the big things that i am for in this -- in this proposal is just enabling restaurants to have unamplified limited live performance artist, to be able to come in and to sing or play an instrument. it will help with the recovery and help us to employ artists while increasing the vibrancy of our neighborhoods. i encourage you to move forward and to pass this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have 26 listeners with seven in the queue. next speaker, please.

>> caller: hello, my name is ofn adomm, i'm in support of the small business recovery act. the permitting process and expense in san francisco is notoriously punitive and exclusionary. with red tape and bureaucracy. i see every part of this act as common sense for a city that wants to bring back our vibrant city, but it must start with the commercial corridors. without support for small businesses, we lose many opportunities for employment with every small business that we lose, we stand to lose residents as well. making it easier for new businesses to open is necessary to revitalize the decimated neighborhoods. this is just common sense and logic. we have astonishing numbers of

vacant spaces. so many of them because the permitting process is difficult many other cities in our country have easy entertainment laws and rooftop businesses with no problems. let's act like the progressive city that we claim to be. i urge you to move forward at once. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. we have 26 listeners with six in the queue. >> caller: hello, this is -- my name is ben carol, and i'm the secretary of the resident labor temple association, the red zone is an historic office building at cap and 16th street in the mission. our tenants include working-class latinox groups and we fear members of those groups

and the communities they serve will be adversely affected by this legislation. through the funding of new businesses, without community -- adequate community notification and process. new businesses will include inevitably the corporations funded by speculators to make profits off of our neighborhoods. these evictions are cruel that we have seen in the mission on steroids in recent years and speeding through legislation that will facilitate eviction and displacement through profiteering by corporate interests and big landlord says unacceptable in our view. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. terrell. we have 26 listeners and five

left in the queue. >> caller: hello, thank you. i am jamal cool and i'm representing three landlords, one in mission and one in cashel. and i'm also representing myself in my personal capacity. we reject the small business recovery act, if for no other reason that it's an omni bus bill. it's so complex that no person has the capacity in a reasonable amount of time to engage with the act and engage with the analysis of it, what it will do, and then to respond. more specifically that we only have two minutes where the proponents of the bill, of course, have 40. in terms of being a landlord representative, i want to say that the san francisco sort of uniqueness and the idea of what

san francisco is has huge amounts of value for us. people choose to live here, people choose to live not in other places because of these small businesses, the truly small businesses, because of the truly unique character and that drives value for landlords. and i'm speaking specifically as a landlord businessman right now. so this act in opening up san francisco to an increasing number of retail businesses necessarily threaten that profitable area for us. we have time, we don't have to push this through. and people have been saying, my business has been hurt, of course your businesses have been hurt, yes, they have. but due to an unprecedented event, covid-19. covid-19 is ending, once covid-19 is over, business will

open again. we don't need to push through, to simply hand things to big business. there's a lot of talk how this will help small businesses. if this is for small businesses -- >> clerk: i apologize,we're at a two-minute limit for public comment. we have three left in queue. if we could unmute the next caller, please. >> caller: i am david quinsy. i have been a resident of mission district for 30 years and a resident of garia for 53 years. i'm astounded by what i hear from the previous callers. this is just what we need. this legislation is just what we need. the soviet-style planning code has destroyed most small businesses. i have done six c.u.a.s for

three of my businesses and each one took three years of paying rent for three years. if you tried to navigate the planning system. the people calling in that don't own small businesses don't understand. supervisor peskin chastising sharkey laguna is ridiculous. he said exactly what needs to be said. and i really don't appreciate him saying it, it was very upsetting. so anyone that owns a small business, this isn't an open invitation for corporations to come in, and you have mcdonald's and gap on every corner. you people don't understand that we are dealing with saving businesses from around us. do we want to live in a city of boarded up storefronts? do we really want to live that way? live with just -- we want everybody -- i don't care about

your race, your gender or your sexual orientation, it doesn't matter. everyone has a free chance to make a good thing happen and support your community. i own three music have seenues i support musicians and bar backs and cooks, every walk of life of small business community, and this legislation is just what we need because the planning department code is what kills small business. and a lot of people called in today and they were simply uninformed. i hope that you support this legislation. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. again, if you would like to speak for this item you need to press star 3, if you have already pressed star 3 please continue to hold until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. we have 24 listeners, and three left in the queue. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. this is peter papadopolous.

you have patience for this very long night. i'll try to talk on a few views and add a different lens here. we very much appreciate the ongoing dialogue with the authors and we should share a commitment to supporting our small businesses and making sure that they get the things they need to not only survive at this point, but to thrive. i think that the real issue is that we're trying to say is to let's find a consensus around the items that we all think that makes sense. i think that a lot of people are saying the same things, no matter which side they think that they're crawling in on. so let's pick those low-hanging fruit and move them forward together and make sure that the obvious things that help the vast majority of our small businesses. and other things that are less clear, especially in the mission where we're expanding our cultural districts and adding new s.u.d.s and other neighborhoods want their own tailored solutions. things to keep raising

a.d.u.s. this could be helpful. for some people in the mission, we had a discussion and we didn't have enough time, but they said, yeah, we want ground floor, you know, old-style live/work with capped a.m.i.s, can we work that out, that would be amazing. so people like this idea but it take a while to work out a mission style of it. and this benefits landlords, it doesn't benefit the small businesses and that it's obviously more profitable to replace an immigrant small business paying $1.75 a square foot and maybe a new boutique when you move in. but the mission is not necessarily opposed to retail or a.d.u.s, right. so those kinds of things, we need time to work it out. what is our a.d.u. version, and people throw out times and we need time to work it out. so let's pull out a lot of those

items that seemed a lot more controversial and unclear that they support our small businesses. you know, these items -- >> time is up. >> clerk: thank you. it looks like we have seven in the queue. next speaker, please. >> caller:supervisors, lauer even petty. a strong supporter of local businesses. i urge you to return the package to its creators with recommendations to separate the elements into smaller groups, unrelated proposals, in order to allow the public the necessary time for consideration. this legislation as written is confusing deregulation policy. under a cloak of urgency.

some of it beneficial, some not regulations must be developed with community need and collaboration. the aim has to be an inclusive -- an inclusive balance of the rights of everyone. all ages, all cultures, all types of local businesses, not just some. regulations are meant to be responsive and really this isn't the way. the process needs to be done carefully and not in a rush mode or a scare mode. the item needs to be divided topically and exposed to public scrutiny in the affected neighborhoods. especially in matters like here that seek to reduce the time that the public gets to weigh in on the business operations in our own backyard. now please be mindful that the

most immediate way to support the widest variety of our local businesses is to stop ordering online all of the things that we can get in our own neighborhoods. thanks. >> clerk: thank you, miss petty next speaker, please. we have five left in the queue. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. i appreciate the late evening and all of your work. my name is william dehannah, i'm a small business commissioner and i was on the mayor's economic recovery task force and i serve as chair for the small business of the latino task force. but tonight i'm here as a mission native and a small business owner. all i'm here to ask is that the mission district to be excluded from this legislation. while i support the intent and the spirit of this legislation, i'm actually thrilled that we're looking at stuff through a new

and exciting lens that appreciates how hard it is to be a small business in san francisco, i just want to slow down the mission district because we can't afford unintended consequences. in the mission we have to give 110% right all the time. and i appreciate the author and the legislator because they have been working with us, and we just need time here in the mission district just to work out these points, because inequity, gentrification and displacement, you can't mitigate that after the fact. you can't go down the road and re-write the legislation and amend it. once it's done, it's done and it's permanent. with that said, i don't want to hold any of my other business corridors back and i don't want them to thwart their effort in recovery. i ask that the mission be excluded so we can work the unintended consequences with the author. i appreciate laurel for always reaching out, and the author, and i appreciate you,

supervisors and it's late and i hope that you got something to eat tonight because it seems that it's a long night. so thank you for your time. i appreciate your work. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. we have four left in the queue, next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. my name is robbie silver and i'm the executive director of the downtown community benefit district. and i want to say that san francisco as a whole, especially downtown, is trying to emerge from a devastating pandemic and i believe that this legislation is just the right thing that we need to act on right now in order to lift some of the bureaucracy and the legislations that are on our small businesses. we are looking for this legislation to help to drive new economic development tools and resources throughout the downtown as well as our beloved

jackman square neighborhood. and as we activate the public spaces and encourage new businesses to open in the future, like new restaurants, we believe that this legislation will certainly provide more tools in the toolkit. thank you very much for your consideration, and we support these small business recovery act. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, you can hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: my name is john men tosi and i'm a founder of the latino district in the mission. and i am concerned about the work that the community has accomplished over the years, that it will be undone, and the protections that we put in place for our mom and pop and immigrant businesses will be undone. we need to spend some time and

make sure that these changes are done through a cultural and an equitable lens. and i'm just asking that we slow this legislation down, if not kill it. i have heard from a lot of businesses that have three and four and five businesses. well, what about the ones in the mission that couldn't afford a parklet and an outdoor space that were closed the whole time? you need to come to thenation and look at what -- the mission and look at what we're going through. and taking this voice away from the community, the only voice that we have, is not the way to do it. you need to redirect this and re-do it and do what you will do with it, but reject it and come back. i mean, we're all in covid right now and coming out of it and we're all if trauma. so this is not a time to react and to do something on the fly. we need to slow down, we need to figure out what we're doing and we need to go forward together. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you, mr. mendoza. we have three in the queue. next speaker, please. >> caller: yes, this is jamal cool, thank you for having me back in the queue. i wanted to note that 20 locations is not a small business. this is title b small business recovery act. >> clerk: sir, actually, you've had your time, sir. i'm sorry. you have had your time to speak for this item, so it would give folks that wanted two minutes each. so we'll move to the next speaker, i apologize. >> caller: hi, i'm chris, and i live in the mission. you know, i have heard a lot of people say that this legislation doesn't have an equity lens and needs more time. but i haven't heard any specific suggested amendments other than a concern that housing might move into an empty space.

spaces on mission have been empty for years because the space is just too large. so this committee has specific recommendations, let's hear them, and let's hammer it out, but don't continue it because you don't have specific feedback. please support this ordinance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we have two left in the queue. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening. this anastasia anapolous. there's too many complex and dangerous strategies to blindly pass them without working through items as individual pieces of legislation that meet the needs of our communities. i urge you to reject this, send it back, and work strategies that will include certain sections of items that you can

pass and other things that is -- it's just too much of an overreach. or just takes away from the rights of communities. making a.d.u.s in retail spaces, just is -- it is outrageous. taking away the -- the community neighborhood notification is inequitable. and, please, proposal needs to be reconsidered with an equity first lens that meets the needs of all of our sensitive communities, or it will help to create another inequitable recovery like all of the other san francisco collapses and recoveries. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. we have one left in the queue.

>> caller: hello, i am (indiscernible) with the latino cultural district. and we work with hundreds of latinx businesses here in the district and we are concerned that this legislation is intentionally going to hurt small businesses that they have worked on for many, many years to create this cultural district. with our plans for expansion, it is very important that this process is completed with a culturally informed equity lens to make sure that it works for the small immigrant businesses. there are some things in this legislation that could work in other neighborhoods, but we are asking to be carved out in order for us to complete our process in a manner that would protect and work for our small businesses and to protect our cultural assets. thank you. >> clerk: i believe that was the last person. yes, that was the last person.

>> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. so, colleagues, this is a very important piece of legislation and the night is long. i had the opportunity to read over supervisor peskin's proposed amendments and i want to say that first, thank you very much, supervisor peskin, for doing the heavy lifting. and i will let you talk about your amendments. what i heard from lots of commenters is that there were some good things about the legislation and a lot of unknown and folks were afraid of the consequences of the unknown. so what i'd like to suggest that we do is to duplicate the file, and amend -- take supervisor peskin's amendment and then leave the rest that we don't agree on to a later date to the call of the chair. i think that it's going to take

us quite some time to get through it and we actually don't have that many meetings left because we're going into budget but i'd like us to -- to do that. in i will move to do that. so, supervisor peskin, i don't see your name on the roster but you wanted to speak first, so go ahead. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair, and thank you for that motion. let me just start off by sincerely thanking laurel and it's been a rough year. >> supervisor melgar: i forgot to close the public comment so i'll do that. public comment is now closed. >> supervisor peskin: maybe i proceed, madam chair? >> supervisor melgar: ." >> supervisor peskin: yes, so i sincerely want to appreciate

what laurel invoked earlier which was a number of the actions that this board took. some of them at my behest. the delivery fee cap by, you know, uber eats and door dash, which we enacted as emergency legislation. and i look forward in the next few weeks to making permanent as we talk about permanence. and then in the same breath, i also want to thank her for acknowledging this board's action on our commercial eviction prevention legislation as well as our entire collective efforts on fee waivers and fee deferrals. and, look, let's be clear, there's no training manual for a pandemic, but i'm pretty proud of our government. i mean, we've invested over $70 million of local money in grants and loans for small businesses,

and when you add all of this up on top of what's happened, it's a pretty incredible local effort, and this has been put through in incredible speed. i don't think that anyone said this during this entire deliberation, the fact that all three of the board of supervisors appointees and the planning commission actually voted against this legislation and he had the calls that we just heard from the community members about the fact that much of this is really not about small business recovery per se. i would actually say that it is much more about landlord recovery and there's actually stuff in this legislation which i think that would imperil small

businesses in the recovery and in the future of san francisco. that said, i do think that there are some good ideas in here and the amendments that i propose and circulated set that forth. i can go over them, but bottom line is that i want to restore some of the definitions around gyms and trade shops. i want to astore the abandonment provisions that are advantageous to small businesses and leasees on rent floor retail. and i want to remove the provisions regarding rooftops. i want to allow for a.d.u.s and ground floor commercial space. i don't what that has to do with business recovery, and i say that as the author of the first a.d.u. policy in the 21st century here in san francisco. and to restore the need for conditional use findings. i want to stick with what the

voters set forth in proposition g authored by the supervisor around retail. i want to eliminate the arbitrary redefinition of what formula retail means. i want to delete what i think is the catering provisions in section 204.3, and i want to restore the commission's review of certificates appropriateness which takes virtually no time at all, but it's an important function. so those are in total what my amendments will do. i think that this conversation is worth having, but i think that it has to be inclusive and i think that the way that certain people -- and i invoke one of their names, i think that we need to listen and i don't want to do a one-size-fits-all

proposition. so that's a summary of the amendments that you have already moved on my behalf. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. supervisor preston, did you have any comments? >> supervisor preston: i didn't, i mean, just a question around process here. some of these amendments are pretty extensive, some of them i agree with, i have not had much of a chance to analyze them since we got them today. so i'm curious whether -- and i don't know if this relates to what you're doing with the duplicated file, but whether the plan is to have those voted on today or whether this would be heard and those amendments introduced in the future? >> supervisor melgar: so i think we're voting on the amended version today. and the duplicated file we will hold that has everything else, and, you know, i think that what we heard from the community is

that they want to take it more slowly, you know, for those aspects that are not addressed in supervisor peskin's amendment. this is not agenda -- committee report, it's not going tomorrow >> supervisor preston: right. so i want to say on the initial look, i agree with many of the amendments. i have not analyzed the rest of them. i understand that these would be substantive and come back before the committee. so i'm happy to support these amendments today but i want to take a closer look at them. you know, when they're back in committee. >> supervisor peskin: so, madam chair, if i may, these are not substantive but i would absolutely be happy to suggest these amendments and to continue the item to our next meeting which i think that is what supervisor preston is calling for. and i realize that, i mean,

look, this is dozens and dozens of pages of frankly, unrelated items. i actually questioned how this could even be done under the single subject rule but apparently that rule is broadly construed. i have never seen it construed this broadly. but having said that, i am happy to suggest those amendments and to continue the item. >> supervisor melgar: okay. is that a motion? our next meeting is already pretty full supervisors. >> supervisor peskin: well, you know, it's 9:05 at night. i can go late on june 7th. yes, that is a motion. i would like to move the aforementioned amendments and continue the item as amended. >> clerk: just for clarity, would you still like to duplicate the file chair melgar? >> supervisor melgar: yes, i would. so if we can vote on continuing

the duplicated file to the call of the chair. and then there's a motion to amend the second file. but continuing that, is that a -- supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: well, madam chair, insofar as we have a bun of work to do on shared spaces and a full calendar, why don't we continue that to the call of the chair as well and we'll get to it as soon as we can. >> supervisor melgar: but then it needs to be re-noticed, right, madam clerk? >> clerk: this particular item does not have a notice, i believe. let me -- >> supervisor peskin: there's ns in it and this does not. >> supervisor melgar: okay, great. so then let's do that then. let's take them separately. >> clerk: okay. so i will take the motion on the

original file to amend on the motion to amend of supervisor peskin earlier in the meeting [roll call vote] you have three ayes. on the remaining balance to recommend -- sorry -- to continue to the call of the chair as amended, [roll call vote] you have three ayes. and on the duplicate to continue the duplicate to the call of the chair, [roll call vote] you have

three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: the motion carries. thank you. will you please call the next item, madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, item 5 is an ordinance with the administrative code to extend the covid-19 limit on evictions with evictions only on the non-payment of rent, to june 30, 2021 to september 30, 2021. the members of the public to provide public comment on item number 5 should call the number on the screen, 1-(415)-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 187 942 8293. and then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak. you only need to press star 3 once to line up. the system prompts will indicate that you have raised your hand.

madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you supervisor preston. thank you for doing this, by the way, for introducing this item. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar, and thank you for getting it on the calendar. obviously, it's a busy hearing today. so i -- i am asking for your support to have no-fault residential evictions to cover the period through september 30th, 2021, this is a 90-day extension. this past october, the board unanimously passed an ordinance to prohibit other types of evictions, other than non-payments, the so-called no-fault evictions and to move it to the end of march 2021 and then voted to extend through june 30th, and with that deadline approaching, i'm asking again for support for an

additional three-month extension. while we have made a lot of progress in our public health emergency and we're seeing a light at the end of the tunnel here, we are by no means out of the woods yet and we just cannot allow people to lose their homes just as they're starting to get back on their feet. both with no fault evictions and non-payment evictions we have made strides to keep people housed but we cannot let up now i really want to thank my co-sponsors, both chair melgar and supervisor peskin, and also president walton and supervisors ronen, chan and mandelman and haney, and after any comments and public comment, i will be moving to forward the item as -- to the full board as a committee report. thank you very much, chair melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you

very much, supervisor preston. madam clerk, do we have any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes, we have 10 listeners with one in the queue unmute the caller, please. >> caller: thank you, supervisor preston. this is anastasia, the member of san francisco tenants union. you know, that the state has not come through. they gave us money and it came from the feds but it still has not gone out to the tenants. so tenants who have not paid their rent through no fault of their own due to the pandemic need relief. so we need a safety net. we can't rely on the state. we don't know what the state is going to do, and there's so much trouble that they have accessing the -- the applications that it's -- it's -- it's a disaster

so thank you very much. i wish like san diego that you could also include ellis act evictions as, you know, as something that we could restrict. but thank you so much for extending this moratorium to september and the eviction protections. >> clerk: thank you. it looks like we have one more in queue. again, if you would like to be in the queue for this item press star, 3, if you have not done so already. and you we can unmute the last caller, please. >> caller: thank you. this is jamal cool. i am again representing the landlords, one in the mission and one in castro, and we absolutely support the extension of protections for tenants due to covid-19. and that is our final comment on this, thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. cool. and that concludes the queue,

madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. with that public comment is now closed. did you make a motion, supervisor preston? >> supervisor preston: i said they would after public comment so thanks again, chair melgar and supervisor peskin for your support of not only this but i believe all of our anti-eviction measures that have been before the board. i think that -- i appreciate very much the unity that the board has acted with on this and i appreciate your ongoing support. so i would like to move that we forward the item to the full board as a committee report with positive recommendation. >> supervisor melgar: great. madam clerk, please call the roll on this item. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. on the motion as stated by supervisor preston to recommend a committee report [roll call vote]

you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. are there any other items before us? >> clerk: that completes the business for today. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, and thank you for hanging in there and good night >> clerk: good night. >> thank you. >> 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 chair, supervisor raphael mandelman and connie chan. our clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any ?owments? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 emergency, and to protect board members, city employees, and the public, the committee room and board of chambers room are closed. committee members will. attend the meeting through video conference to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on the agenda, both on sfgovtv.org or on the number screening across the screen, you can call 415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. 1874896279, and then

press ##. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted. when your item of interest comes up, dial *3. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment by e-mail at vivtor.young@sfgov.org. it will be forwarded to the supervisors and be included as part of the official file. that completes the official comments. >> chairman: thank you. can you please read the first item. >> clerk: item is a hearing to appoint one member april 30, 2022, on the commission for animal control and welfare. >> chairman: thank you,

mr. young. colleagues, we heard most of the seats for this body last week. i am delighted that mr. van horn has reapplied for seat seven, which has to be a licensed veterinarian. and has served on the body in the past. mr. van horn, do you have any comments? i saw you, mr. van horn. the floor is yours, sir. he was on there a second ago. >> clerk: he is still currently logged in. there you go. >> how is that? >> chairman: that's perfect. >> sorry. i've been kicked off twice in the last 30 minutes. we're trying with my iphone at this point. for the last couple of years, i have been the veterinarian occupying seat seven mainly because

i haven't been able to wrangle anybody else into doing it. but i am happy to continue. i've tried to stay impartial in terms of subjects that come to the commission. i feel like my position there is mainly to reflect the veterinarian profession as a whole. i mean, i've got colleagues who work with peta and also colleagues who make their living in the beef industry. i have colleagues that are all about, you know, animal research and other colleagues that are absolutely not. so i try and just bring background from all parties and their views to the various topics that we're discussing. if anything, i think i've done a pretty good job of staying impartial through my input on the various topics that have come up. and if people are happy

with my work, i'm happy to keep serving. >> chairman: thank you so much, mr. van horn. we very much appreciate your service and expertise that you bring. and your colleagues seek your reappointment. and thank you very much for your willingness to continue on, and i am sorry for your failure to wrangle another veterinarian for seat number seven. is there any public comment on item number one, mr. young? >> clerk: yes. members of the public, who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. 1874896279. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment.

at this time, we have no members of the public in line for public comment. >> chairman: okay. then public comment is hereby closed. and thank you, again, mr. van horn. i would like to make a motion to send this item with recommendation as a committee report so that it can be heard with the other applicants that we approve next week. on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call please. >> clerk: this is a recommendation for appointment to seat seven. >> chairman: that is correct. >> clerk: on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion to recommend as a committee report is adopted without objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: thank you. item 2 is a motion approving or directing the

mayor's nomination for the reappointment of julia patiknik to the treasure island for a term ending february 26, 2025. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner, are you there and ready to say a few words? >> yes, i am. good morning. >> chairman: good morning. >> can you hear me okay? >> chairman: we can. >> thank you very much. it is great to see all of you today. i'm really thrilled to be renominated. i've already served a short 30 month stint and really enjoy working with the board at treasure island. i'm sharing my 20 years of expertise and energy in the environment. we have had continual blackouts on the island, and i've been working with different groups to try to find solutions for the community. i've been working on backup batteries, and also working on equity and community justice issues, working with the newest board member and with

community leaders to help on making sure that the transition is just as reasonable and really some of the work that i do with the coalition-building across the country, bringing shared lessons learned so we can implement and really work on transparency and accountability. and so as the two islands move towards this development to really make sure that we're constantly working with the community and approving their voices in the process, so it is not just one versus the other, and it is more of a joint work in progress. i would love the opportunity to continue to work with the community and with the staff and the current directors on moving us forward in a just and equity way. >> chairman: thank you so much, commissioner. are there any questions from members of the rules committee? seeing none, i -- oh, commissioner? supervisor chan? >> i just want to make a quick comment.

i'm really glad that you brought up about the power shortages. i do feel like every time when we have a storm in san francisco, somehow that treasure island always gets the short end of that stick. and it always happens there. so it is just music to my ears. i have great sympathy for my supervisor, matt haney. and he was the only supervisor who could not walk his entire district. i always have the pleasure to be able to do door-knocking in my district simply by walking there, and to know that treasure island truly is an island. and yet they're still really part of the community of san francisco. and we need to continue to make sure that whatever we do there is inclusive, and make sure that they do have voices. so it is great to hear that that is the first point that you brought up. i appreciate that. >> thank you. it is really important.

the same with the toll issues and the congestion and the ferries. the accessibility is so critical, and it can't just been for one group of people. that connective tissue that makes san francisco so great as a community, i agree. we have to constantly keep saying that message and showing by our actions that we can do this. >> chairman: is there any public comment on item 2? >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 415-655-0001, the meeting i.d. 1874896279. then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial *3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. at this time, we have no listeners and nobody in

line for public comment. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. i would just like to start by thinking you for your service and soon to be your continued service to the treasure island development authority board of directors, and also acknowledge your work at nrdc, and i will say not apapo to this, i'm in receipt of a letter which or nrdc signed on to this morning questioning whether or not the city attorney should be the next general manager of the public utilities commission. a fascinating letter. we'll have those discussions at future meetings. having said that, i would like to make a motion to amend the subject motion by removing the word "rejecting" at line three, and removing the word

"reject" at line eight. on that motion, mr. clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on the motion to amendment, supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> aye. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: aye. >> clerk: the motion to amend is adopted without objection. >> chairman: i would like to send the motion at amended with recommendation to the full board of supervisors. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion, supervisor mandelman? >> aye. >> clerk: supervisor chan? >> aye. >> clerk: chair peskin? >> chairman: aye. >> clerk: the motion is adopted without objection. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. congratulations, julia, and colleagues, we are adjourned. >> thank you.

>> clerk: this meeting will come it order. welcome to the may 24th, 2021, regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors. i'm supervisor myrna melgar, chair of the committee, joined by dean preston and aaron

peskin. the committee clerk today is erica major and i would also like to acknowledgesfgovtv.org for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk: due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. the meeting members will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting the same as physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. either channel 26 or 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments offered to speak during the public comment period are available by calling the phone

number (415)655-0001. again that number is (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187~942~8293. again that number is 187~942~8293. then press pound and pound again. when connected you'll hear the meeting discussions, but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star and then 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. also you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. you can email myself, the land use and transportation clerk erica.majors.a.t.sfgov.org golf. it will be forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the

official file. written comments made be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall. 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california, 94102. madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. please call item number 1. >> clerk: item number 1 an ordinance amending the environment and public works code to require transporters of construction and demolition debris to obtain a auto temporary or annual permit from the department of environment for each vehicle for verify recovery rate after completing the project. authorize the director to impose administrative penalties or violations and affirming appropriate findings. members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on item number 1 to call the number on the screen. again the number is (415)655-0001. the meeting idea is 187~942~8293. then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please dial star 3 to line up to speak for item number 1. you need to press star 3 once to line up. the system prompt will confirm you have raised your hand. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk. so, colleagues, supervisor safai has requested that we continue it to the committee meeting on monday, july 12th. but because it's been agendaized as an action item, we are going to take public comment and then we can entertain a motion after public comment to continue this item, as reflected. if there's no questions or

remarks from you, madam clerk, can we go to public comment. >> clerk: i see no one on the roster. yes. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: madam clerk, we can't hear you. >> clerk: i apologize. we're checking to see if we have callers in queue. please press star 3 to be added for item number 1. i am in communication with jim from d.t. we have eight listeners with one in queue. , jim, if you could unmute the caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. this is georgia. i sent an email in about the language of the proposed

legislation. and i just wanted to point out that beyond the building department definition of a demolition, as i understand it in the legislation, if there's also a definition of demolition under the planning code, 10 act demolition. that has the same issues with a lot of dumpsters going out from projects. so i just wanted to make sure that that was looked at as an area that should be covered. and i also think that for some of these major alterations, with major excavations, those need to be looked at as well. that seems to be the pattern with a lot of these alterations, they're doing major full-lot excavation of the lot, and that adds to the issue of what do you do with everything that winds up in the dumpster. so i'll see if you continue it to july 12th.

but i just wanted to add that and sort of point out my email that i saw was in the packet. thank you, everyone. take care. bye. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, miss shudis. >> clerk: that completes the queue. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. with that, public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin: thank you,. >> supervisor mar:. just a suggestion, which insofar as july 12th is little ways away. and there's a lot of uncertainty between now and then, just food for thought. i'm happy to vote for july 12th. but it may be more expedient to continue it to the call of the chair. and you can schedule it earlier or later. but just a suggestion. >> supervisor melgar: i will entertain either motion, supervisor peskin.

the supervisor who sponsored it specifically requested the date. i think your suggestion is better. >> commissioner peskin: well, given those words, i will make said motion to continue the item to the call of the chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor. >> clerk: to continue the item to the call of the chair. moved by supervisor peskin. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin:ize. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> commissioner preston: aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. will you please call item number 2. >> clerk: yes. item number 2 is is a resolution urging the recreation and parks department and the municipal transportation agency, real estate division and public works to work collaboratively on a long-term recovery and revitalization plan involving immediate neighbors and

community stakeholders to re-imagine twin peaks to improve cleanliness, environmental sustainability and the building to build upon a welcoming environment for residents and tourists alike. members of the public, who wish to provide public comment on item number 2, please call the number on the screen, (415)655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 187~942~8293. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up to speak. >> supervisor mar:. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, madam clerk. i introduced this resolution last week. as you may remember, we did have an opportunity to hear presentations from the departments. we had worked with neighbors of the original resolution and we continued this item to allow

another opportunity for neighbors to weigh in and finesse some of the language. there has been some, you know, mistrust and lots of activity between the neighbors and the various city departments. i want to address the condition of the twin peaks lookout and we need to look at the collaboration between the different departments, but also specifically address the most impacted nation and homeowners. i want to make sure that we have a process that's transparent and clear and open, so that everyone can weigh in and we can actually make progress on this issue. looking at places like lands' end. we know how much potential twin peaks has and could offer our city, both the neighbors and folks who come here from other

places, like you know a warming hut or, you know, environmental conservation center, maybe some public art space. so i want to make sure that we do what we can to reenvision this, at the same time we are addressing the neighbors and the folks who are most impacted. so i have done that. i have some amendments to the resolution. but before we do that, i would like to entertain any comments or questions that you have. and take public comment on this item. so, colleagues, do you have any comments on this resolution? >> commissioner peskin: none beyond just to thank you for these amendments. was just looking through. i think they respond to a lot of issues that collectively we as a

committee were raising in our discussion that first came before us. appreciate the ongoing discussion on those at committee and those amendments. looking forward to public comment. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. with that madam clerk -- you know what, why don't i read the comments, the amendments. i have been communicating with the city attorney. they're not substantive. but the amendments are as follows. on page 1, lines 1 through 2, we'll replace "develop" with "work collaboratively to design." on page 1, line 6. we will add the work "collaboratively" after department of public works. to work collaboratively. on page 3, line 6-13, we have

moved up the following clause and added "homeowner and neighborhood association." homeowner and neighborhood association, including the twin peaks homeowners' association. that should be consulted as part of the process. so the full clause would, the board of supervisors also urges the aforementioned apartments to engage with immediate neighbors, neighboring homeowner and organization including the twin peaks improvement association, the homeowners' association and forest knolls and improvement club. and then on page 3, line 17 weed a foundation of one of the suggested groups to enlist as part of the process. then on page 3, line 20-24.

the clause is struck out, because we already moved it to the top. on page 4, lines 5-7, we added another resolve clause to manufacture ice is that twin peaks will prioritize public uses on public land, and would engage in a robust community public process, as far as the uses are considered, which was something that you had brought up, supervisor. >> commissioner peskin:. and then -- supervisor peskin. we added another resolve clause urging departments to closely engage the board of supervisors, especially around private leases to outside entities. so now it reads, further resolved that the board of supervisors or just the departments who provide regular updates to the board about any progress made in the visioning project, especially as it pertains to any potential leases to outside entities.

so that is the -- all of the changes that we've made. and i think that there is consensus among all of the impacted neighbors and homeowners. and i hope that you can support it. so thank you so much. madam clerk, can we take public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes. we'll see if there are any callers in queue. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to be added to speak for item number 2. you only need to press this once. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin to speak. we are confirming we have 16 listeners, with two in queue. if you can unmute the first speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is denise la point. i'm a longtime homeowner on twin

peaks boulevard. thank you for these amendments, which i think address clearly public land and public use. don't think it was the intention of the author to overcommercialize the space or any of the neighbors. in my view, any sort of activity, other than crime, graffiti and the war-torn deterioration of the site, which happened due to a lack of communication and even interest in departments of rec and park and m.t.a. and long-term historic uses of the site. i look forward to this process. i think it could be exciting. i mean, i think we should not have a civic embarrassment at the top of the most, you know, splendid site probably in

california. so thank you, supervisors. i urge your support and thank you, supervisor peskin and preston, for your comments, which i wholly support, which helps leads to the amendment. and supervisor melgar, onward. >> president feinstein: thank -->> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, ms. la point. thank you for your work on this. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. this is bob planter. i applaud the process of getting collaboration. you look at sidewalks being wide enough at viewing areas. wide enough so two people, using -- which requires more width than wheelchairs. two people using walks or wheelchairs don't need to maneuver and endanger their balance. and beyond that to be adequate number of curb-access ramps for

people who come in a paratransit van or some other lift-equipped vehicle. that makes it more, if you will, hospitable and attractive to people of all abilities. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, mr. planthold. next speaker, please. >> that was our last speaker. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. >> i'm sorry. somebody just raised their hand. >> i'm the executive director of designing accessible communities. thank you, supervisors, for allowing me to speak. i, along with mr. planthold, asked that the appropriate and necessary review of whatever work is needed on the site be

done by department of public works ample e.a. coordinate, mayor's office and public review through the mayor's disability council. eventually the project, the site be completely accessible, as would be required by both the 504 federal civil rights association, the americans with disabilities axe and california code and regulations. thank you very much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. is that it for public comment? >> clerk: that is the last -- that's the last caller. >> we have two more. >> supervisor melgar: okay. great. thank you. let's hear from them. thank you. >> caller: hey, everyone. my name is tony.

i'm with the -- [indiscernible] we have four locations in the city. one of them is in bean tree with supervisor peskin. it's been a tough year for sure. i think for everybody. and i know having the park -- and the changes. >> supervisor melgar: i'm so sorry. this is item number 2, this is about the twin peaks boulevard resolution. is that what you're commenting on? >> caller: no. i apologize. i'm so sorry. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. >> clerk: i'll make a quick announcement. so we're on item number 2. if you're currently in the queue for item number 2 for twin peaks, you can keep your hand raised. if you're not in the queue to speak on twin peaks, you can press star 3. we're verifying how many more callers we have.

madam clerk. >> supervisor melgar: one left in queue for public comment for this item, madam clerk? >> clerk: yes. >> supervisor melgar: okay. let's go ahead, please. >> caller: hi. thank you. my name is cliff barker. i get around san francisco on transit, on foot and by bike. last year i was able to visit twin peaks on my bike about once a week. i realized that that is an option that's not available to people who may not be capable of riding a bike or are not as fit. but it was really -- i can't understate how amazing a space it was when it was not open to private cars. it's just so much more pleasant to walk or bike up the streets when you're not worried about getting struck by a moving vehicle, which has happened to me several times in my life. it's -- just the sounds that cars produce, whether they're

electric or have an internal combustion engine, it really damages the vibe. it's such a serene and beautiful place. i agree that access to twin peaks is incredibly important and we need to find a way to ensure that all san franciscans and visitors can get to this incredible public space that we share. but i don't think 24/7 access for private cars is the right way to do it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, madam clerk. we have one more that popped up. jim, if you can unmute the last caller, please. >> caller: hello. i'm rob maldonado. i hope you all had a great weekend. i want to call and support for a long-term vision for recreational purposes for twin peaks. i'm echoing to what the last speaker mentioned about concerns in regards to the recreational

use. and in part with like vehicle usage. i feel like when -- at the time of twin peaks when there was no cars allowed up there, individuals were allowed to use twin peaks for purposes and even visitors as well, just walking up there. you know, giving a purpose to recreational standout that, you know, san francisco is known for. i was hoping like a long-term vision to preserve or even like let san francisco truly know -- like really recreational as well would be ideal. it's just a suggestion. anyways thank you so much for your time. and, yeah, have a good day. >> clerk: thank you. madam clerk we actually have another caller. apologize. when they press the star 3, it pops up. >> supervisor melgar: no need to apologize, madam clerk. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

jim, if you could unmute the caller, please, thanks. >> caller: hi there. i'm autumn and i'm sorry to call a little bit late. i'm calling to express my support for shared spaces and the small business recovery. >> supervisor melgar: sorry. this is the wrong item. we're talking about the twin peaks resolution. if you could stay in the queue, that will come up next. >> caller: sounds good. thanks. >> clerk: madam clerk, we have two more in queue. >> supervisor melgar: can you make an announcement that this is the twin peaks resolution. i'm afraid folks are -- >> clerk: absolutely. so, folks that have their hand up, i have two noted in the queue. if you're calling about shared spaces or small administration,

hole to will be taken plater. we're on item number 2, urging the recreation and park department and other city departments to develop a long-term plan to re-imagine twin peaks. if you're not on the line for that, please press star 3 to remove yourself. jim, if you can unmute the last caller. now we have one caller. >> caller: hello. thank you for letting me -- i speak again. i spoke a moment ago. >> supervisor melgar: i'm sorry, you can't speak again on the same item. madam clerk. >> clerk: okay. we have -- that was the last caller in the queue. >> supervisor melgar: okay. thank you so much, madam clerk. so with that, public comment is now closed.

colleagues, i would like to have a motion to adopt the amendment that i previously mentioned and circulated, please. >> commissioner peskin: so moved. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, madam clerk. will you take roll on the amendment, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to amended the motion, as stated previously. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin: aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. >> president yee: aye. >> clerk: supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: aye. >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> supervisor melgar: so the motion passes. now i would like to make a motion, colleagues, to move this item out of committee to the full board of supervisors, as amended, as the committee reports, please. madam clerk, will you please call the roll. >> clerk: yes. on the motion, as stated by supervisor melgar to recommend the item, as amended, as the committee report. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner peskin: aye. >> clerk: supervisor preston. --

>> commissioner preston: aye. >> supervisor melgar: thank you. the motion passes. madam clerk, will you please call item number 3. before you do that, i would just like to say, madam clerk, that there had been a suggestion that we call items 3 and 4 together. i'm not going to do that, even though it would save us some time on public comment. because i think both of these items are pretty needy and i want to give the public the full amount of time that we can to weigh in on these very important topics. so for those of you who are listening in and you want to make monument. we'll be calling them separately. >> clerk: yes. item number 31 an ordinance amending the administrative code

to rename and modify the places for people program as the shared spaces program to clarify the roles and responsibilities of various departments, streamline the application process, and programmatic requirements, such as public access, setting permit and license fees and provide for the conversion of existing parklet and shared spaces permitees to the new program requirements. and making appropriate findings. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand in confirmation. >> supervisor mar:. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, madam clerk.

i think we have a gentleman from the planning department to present on this item. we also have staff here from the mayor's office, mayor's office on disability, the m.t.a., public works. and the entertainment commission on standby, if there are any questions. i see supervisor peskin on the roster. supervisor peskin, did you want to comment before the presentation? >> commissioner peskin: no, madam clerk. i just want to say two things. thing number one is i will reserve my comments, albeit i would not mind an interactive discourse with the presenters. but i know that that is not what the chair prefers. but i'll reserve my comments until after -- not only the presentations, but public comment for we will have quite a bit of public comment. i also wanted to state for the record that i found it to be quite unfortunate that the controller's office, which i hold in very high esteem, dumped

a report on us minutes before this meeting, which has not been rosenfeld's style. i had no idea the report was even being prepared. i have not read it. i just got out of rules committee. but i'm perturbed that a report would be dropped by the city economist on this committee moments before a committee hearing. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. thanks for alerting us to that. i had not seen that. are you here to present? >> i am, madam clerk. good afternoon, supervisors. >> supervisor melgar: good afternoon. >> thank you. yes. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the planning department, director of the shared spaces program. i'm joined by deputy program manager monica munowitch. the director of the office -- the mayor's office of digital

nicole bond, the director of the entertainment commission, the public works and julie flynn and maria dealv from the planning department. the rest of our leadership team is here, should any questions come up specific to their areas. madam clerk, i'd like to be able to share screen. but i don't believe that i have the ability at present. thank you. i see that. great. okay. supervisors, are you able to see the slide show? great. thank you for the nod. so today will take about 15 minutes to talk about where the shared spaces program is as of today. and sort of the conditions that have driven us to the moment we're in now, contemplating legislation to codify this program. we'll also talk about specific policy goals and the provisions that the legislation lays out in

order to meet the policy goals and then, of course, move to public comment, questions and discussion. so as a quick reminder, shared spaces take place out of doors. this was to accommodate activities that were otherwise banned during the covid-19 pandemic, but i think it's also important to underscore that san francisco has been a national leader in readapting the public recommend and, you know, coming up with innovative uses of the outdoors. so many of the ways that we have been using the outdoors for shared spaces are, in fact, typologies. we're very familiar with already. more detail on that soon. so there have been a variety of principle lease or commercial activities that shared spaces has facilitated safely moving outside, probably most visible, of course, are outdoor -- is outdoor dining, to a lesser degree activities like personal services, adult fitness, as well

as retail. critically there is also a curbside pick-up component of the emergency shared spaces program, that reserves the curb for contactless pick-up or short-term pick-up and drop-off of medication, groceries and the like. so, of course, the program was conceived in a very dire economic context, that was brought about by the covid-19 pandemic. in this study from late last year, we see that san francisco was ranking third in the nation in terms of small business closure and fourth in the nation in terms of permanent closures. and this is significant because while we know that -- we hope that the covid-19 pandemic itself will end and that state of public health emergency will be rescinded, the after effects, especially the economic ones, not to mention the psychological ones, will be ongoing. and so our continued economic

recovery and health is a long project, something that will far surpass the covid-19 pandemic itself ending. so it's preliminary work that the city economist's office has done to look at a sample towards the early part of the program, where we -- for which we do have solid data. it does show that the program was meeting the intended goal. so we were able to keep more people in their jobs, more merchants open and earning and, therefore, salvaging part of our tax base. it's also important to note i think for context that according to a survey conducted by the s.f. office of small business, in partnership with researchers at san francisco state university, that small businesses in san francisco heavily depend on residents and in particular neighborhood residents, the folks that they serve in kind of their immediate vicinity. also for a sense of scale that

you know, over two-thirds of -- or around two-thirds of small businesses have 25 or fewer employees. it's an extremely eventful year as all know. the shared spaces team, comprised of planning, m.t.a., public works, the entertainment commission, fire, and others initiated engagement around making this program potentially permanent, after the economic recovery task force and mayor breed announced in -- the consequence of the economic recovery task force, intensive work announced last october that the shared spaces is something we should explore making into a permanent program. we'd like to show the slide to reflect for a moment on really now the event of the last year meant that we were toggling in and out of different areas of risk from red to orange to

yellow, back into purple. understanding of community transmission, of covid-19 was also evolving. this has meant that standards for design, as well as operations of shared spaces evolved over time. one of the advantages, of course, of codification is being able to set those requirements and those regulating -- those operating procedures to stabilize them and give everyone surety of expectations as operators. there was, of course, a steady rise and growth in the shared spaces program, after it had first launched last summer. we have seen a leveling and a tapering off of that. and i do anticipate that trend in the case load to remain steady and perhaps even decrease in future for other reasons, which we'll expound upon later. so, you know, there's a good mixture, add mixture of how the public realm is being used by

operators. i mean, all of those different public space venues that we talked about a little bit earlier. also for additional context, we know that shared spaces operators themselves are reflective of san francisco's diversity. over half of the respondents to an ongoing survey, we have shared spaces permittees are women-own the enterprises. we also know from that same survey this a third of shared spaces operators are immigrant-own the businesses. and over a third identify as minority. this program, according to those who have taken advantage of it, have helped them avoid closing permanently and becoming that --statistic. the small business community has continued interest in operating small spaces, even after the pandemic, not just seasonally, but all year round.

okay. now on to legislation itself. the ordinance that's before you, supervisors, is organized around these nine policy goals, which monica and i will talk about in a little bit more detail sort of one by one. the first is we really want to make this easy for neighborhood groups and for merchants to engage with. i think that has been one of the advantages of the program over the last ten months is that it's been relatively easy and streamlined for merchants to engage around. so we want to keep doing that. we want to consolidate. all of the different types of ways that the neighbors and mer chans have been activating the public realm and organize those under a single, cohesive and comprehensive piece of city code. so before shared spaces, of course, we had the city places for people ordinance, which was geared primarily at sort of noncommercial, community-serving uses. and the last experiment of the

shared spaces program, over the last ten or so months has adapted some of those very familiar uses of the public realm to serve commercial needs and uses as well. equity and inclusion is a key driver and it's a key principle as we've contemplated program design moving forward. some of this monica will discuss a little bit later. for example, the way that the fee structure has been sort of conceived, in order to help achieve greater equity and be accessible to as many folks as possible. i'll talk acts bit later about a.d.a. provisions and ensuring that, through the program, that individual sites and collectively shared spaces sites are attentive to obviously the needs of the -- especially the mobility impaired. we also have a robust grant program that was launched last

november as part of the temporary emergency program, that we are very glad to continue. i want to thank mayor breed and you, supervisors, for passing a supplemental appropriation earlier this year, earmarking funds that will be administered through our grants program being managed by julie flynn for these types of materials, as well as technical assistance. the legislation, as well as all of the subsequent regulations, really emphasize, of course, accessibility. here are just some examples of some of the literature we published during the pandemic, that convey what accessibility looks like and what it means for parklets. these standards are actually ones that we've had for the last ten years, as part of our pre-covid parklet program and with codification, you know,

sort of effectively reinstating them, as well as steps of progressive discipline around compliance to ensure that we are seeing compliance with these requirements. as i mentioned earlier, economic recovery will, of course, be -- will be a long process, likely spanning many future fiscal years. so the provision of the legislation do take this into account. there are a couple key ideas that we should highlight, as we depicted in this graph. permit fees will be deferred. collection of those will be deferred until march 31st, 2022, wherein they'll be collected through the unified license bill. ongoing annual license fees will be waived through 2023. so this means that as you approach the end of this current calendar year and your shared spaces sponsor, you want to

transfer from a temporary emergency version of the permit to a codified version of the permit, that you know you won't be hit with a permit fee right out the gate, rather it will be -- it's collection that will be deferred until 2023 and you also have license fees waived through 2023, rather your permit fees is waived to march 31 respectst 2022. monica will talk more about what the specific fee amounts are. another key idea that the legislation lays out is giving sponsors as much time as possible to ameliorate any code issues they might have at their sites, in order to qualify for a codified permit. become complaint. so for this reason, what the legislation currently says is that sponsors have between now and the end of this current calendar year. especially the time that legislation would be enacted

through the end of the calendar year to undertake any capital improvements to their site to make it complaint. -- make it compliant. another essential layer, part of shared spaces and so we, along with the small business recovery act, have provisions that help to ensure those in the arts and entertainment community are performers, our musicians, who need to be part of our economic recovery are also accounted for and can take part of the realm. with that i'll turn it over to monica, deputy program manager to talk about the rest of the legislative provisions. >> great. thank you so much, robin'.

goal five is balancing curbside functions over the last year, when the city was shutting down and everyone is sheltering in place, our commercial districts and our corridors were a lot more overnight and there was a -- more quiet and there was a competing demand for pacer space and allowed us to permit shared spaces and maximize curb spaces for that function, as the city opens up and the economy opens back up, that means that there will be more competing demand, similar to pre-covid expected, as well as sort of bringing shared spaces into the mix of things. so we'll need to be thoughtful in how we put our transit first and vision zero, city establish priorities at the forefront. and really leverage our agencies and our city's carb management strategy, which was adopted last year as our guiding sort of pillar and framework for this

work. really assess eligibility for this space. while we don't permit curbside spaces, that's public works, we'll have a set of parameters that work through eligibility and sort of policies and programs, climate action, and in more detail really look a at how the different modes, 11 listed here, from bike-share stations, commercial loading, blue accessible spaces, very specific needs for the curbs and sort of the different requirements and parameters of how we handle that and assess that in our

eligibility and feasibility assessment as part of permit review. the three photos here in the screen show the different -- three different typologies. on the left showing the parklet, which is very similar to the pre-covid parklet style available at all times. the image in the middle, separate typology. maximize the space, putting chairs and tables out, for example, when the business needs to use the space and taking that away and able to turn that over to -- the curb is allocated for, when not in business operation. so really excited that that sort of separate tie -- typology and very prevalent over the last ten months in shared spaces, having

a structure out there on the ground. we have a table to show in a little bit more detail what these three look like. so like i mentioned, the first and third row, the commercial parklet and right in the category. the right-most column, both have a fixed structure. which means both are operating -- sort of taking up the space on the curb 24 hours a day. and the public parklet, no commercial activity, 9 commercial parklet would be for that business during operating hours. all three of those that have some space available for the public, so even if you're a movable parklet or commercial parklet, the legislation and design parameters require a bench or a space always available for public access. the legislation that's before

you has the summaries in the three different ways for the three different categories and typology of $1,000 for a one-time permit fee for a public parklets. $2,000 for the commercial, movable parklet and $3,000 for the commercial parklet. so again one-time fees for one parking space, each additional space would have that additional fee. and then that annual license fee shown on the right there, that robin mentioned earlier, would be deferred through the first year, through march 2023. and then all of these would be subject to sponsors, businesses that earn less than $2 million in s.f. gross receipts, but eligible for a half-off fee waiver, as proposed for the legislation. so goal 7, robin touched on this earlier and coordination. but really we envision this to be a customer friendly as possible, meaning it's a one-stop shop, one location no matter what permit type, what

flavor of curb or roadway, general loading. i shouldn't -- we'll have a process. but there's many different types of shared spaces. one-stop and very easy, so you know where to go. and all of those would have the 30-day approval timetable that would apply, which would be streamlined, more robust, more time than what we've done over the last year where we've had a 72-hour very tight review process for our curbside and sidewalk permit, which has been such appear fast turnaround, being responsive to businesses, that's not allowed us a ton of time to do the work that's critical to sustain the program. so in 30 days, that means you see the addition of the sffd posting -- seven-day posting and a public hearing. that's part of the permit review. all of this to say, maximizing staff time is really part of

working together, even though there are separate departments issuing the permits and and sidewalk and roadway and planning department. all of the different jurisdictions. but one stop, one agency responsible. the permitting agency responsible for the sort of communication and interaction with the client and having a very clear sequencing of the review to maximize efficiency and transparency in the process. and i touched on this briefly a moment ago. what that means for notice and hearings and appeals, again this is a process that was -- was waived during the pandemic, something that wasn't really part of our 72-hour or really streamlined process that moving forward will be built in to this 30-day, allowing for more engagement and outreach and permitting process.

last, almost done with the presentation. last sort of note on this public input procedure. neighbor concept. a very important parameter that we wanted to call out, which is that written consent from a neighbor is required, if you're seeking sort of a space that extends beyond your business. so that could be ground floor tentant or in the absence of a ground floor tenant, a property owner. we had during the temporary program, this parameter would continue and would be very important for the program to run smoothly. it still applies if turnover in the business or if sort of a neighbor changes their mind. but this consent is important parameter in the program operations. policy goal 9, coordinate an enforcement. the diagram shows a very different permit types and the different lead and then supporting agencies. so for sidewalk and curbside permits, public works issues those. they're the lead for

enforcement, roadway, of course, and m.t.a. is heavily involved in the oversight planning department for parcel and entertainment is police. so these are the -- permitting agencies and then enforcement, all working together, fire department, of course and mayor's office of disability, coordinating supporting agencies and enforcement as well for different permit types. so that concludes our presentation. we're very pleased to be here with the milestone sharing with you all and look forward to hearing your comments. thank you so much. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much. and before we open it up to questions and comments from my colleagues, i do want to note that we have folks here from the mayor's office, the mayor's office on disability and the entertainment commission on standby for any questions that these two folks can't answer. so with that, colleagues, do you have any questions or comments?

supervisor peskin, you had comments earlier. did you want to -- >> commissioner peskin:. >> supervisor mar:, i said that i would reserve my comments until after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: okay. sounds good. i do have a couple questions for you. first of all, can you tell me in the three categories of public -- of parklets that you talk about, who -- there's no economic activity. who usually sponsors public parklets? >> yes. thank you, chair melgar, for that question. in the past, pre-covid, of course -- which were all public parklets, we had such a great variety of sponsors. of course, some restaurants and food establishments like cafes were sponsors of parklets. but we also hadle schools, middle schools, high schools.

we had parklets that were designed by youth, get built and serve their communities. we've had community benefit districts and other neighborhood associations also be sponsors of parklets. other institutions like art galleries and arts organizations take them on. so we really have over the last ten years seen a wide breadth of sort of adoption and application of this type of public place. during covid, during of the last ten months, because the use was geared towards helping to support economic recovery, we've seen mostly restaurateurs and personal service providers like, you know, barbers and personal fitness businesses and the like. >> supervisor melgar: i guess my question is how do you then regulate that there's no economic activity on them?

>> right. so at the time of permit application, you would have to state -- you would have to elect what your intended program is. so that would be a matter of your permit terms and conditions. so, for example, if you were -- wanted to have a public parklet, but you were a cafe, you would sign a permit saying that it's actually -- that's what your intention was. and to operate it otherwise you would obviously be in violation of your permit. >> supervisor melgar: and so what would happen if someone, you know, like was violating it and somebody complains, what would then be the process? would you charge the difference between the public parklet and a commercial space? or what would happen? >> well, firstly, if someone is in violation, any kind of violation, whether that's not adhering to their public access

provisions or any other kind of complaint, an issue with the way that they're operating, what the legislation does is set up steps of progressive discipline, that would, you know, be triggered if it were to sort of be reported or noted that someone was an operate -- an operator was doing so in a manner outside their permit terms. so some of the general steps in that -- in those -- that progressive discipline are a notice of correction, a notice of violation, other penalties such as fees. of course, permit revocation is the ultimate resort, if someone really isn't giving up to their obligations or responsibilities as stated. if a sponsor wanted to convert from a public parklet to a commercial parklet, there wouldn't be any reason to, you know, prevent them from converting and paying the appropriate fees and so forth. >> okay. thank you so much.

and during your presentation, you talked about the permission that is required from neighbors. can you tell me how you define a neighbor? i think i do love this program. i think it's added tremendously to the life of the streets in my district. however, when there have been complaints and, you know, spats between neighbors it's always been about how it impacts folks in the nearby. so how do we define neighbors? >> sure. thank you for that question. we do -- the goal is to have a very transparent parameter around that. so existing legislation defines the neighbor or at least where concept is required for that neighborhood permission to be where over 50% of the park -- of the marked parking space is covered. so at that point is when you're considered sort of the neighbor

affected and would be required to submit the consent, over 50%. >> supervisor melgar: i see. so someone immediately across the street, who is impacted by -- would not necessarily be considered a neighbor? >> no. but they would -- not for that policy. but during the seven-day public ntsbing, that would be sort of -- that noticing -- the person across the street, the entire block -- you have the opportunity to weigh in at that point. but you wouldn't have to -- to give your permission for the consent. no. >> supervisor melgar: great. thank you so much. that's my questions. supervisor peskin, did you change your mind about asking questions? go ahead. >> commissioner peskin: just a tiny little bit. and actually i just want to pose these things now, so that monica and robin can respond to them later, after public comment. one, i just wanted to ask for something that i asked robin for before and again today, that

used to be publicly available data that is no longer -- which is the breakdown of shared spaces by districts. we do have a map and you can certainly see what the concentrations are and are not. but i would like that information to be broken down, which i think is not too hard, given the data that exists by supervisory district between now and the end of this meeting. secondly, there was a discussion of a survey and the results of said survey, which sounded like it was a voluntary survey and not a statistically accurate survey. but i'd like more information on that prior to the end of this meeting. and then just relative to monica's last comment. there's a profound difference between neighbors who are

residents, but i think what you actually mean are property owners. i'm not clear that residents per se, be they land owners or tenants have a say in the existing scheme. all of this is easily curable. i'm actually a large proponent of this effort. and i would like to get it right and iron out all of these little bumps. i won't say at the onset. but we're deep into it. but before we make it quote/unquote permanent. i want to leave that thought with you. and we can, you know, take that up a little bit later in the meeting. i reserve more comments until after public comment. >> supervisor melgar: thank you so much, supervisor peskin. i, like you, am a big appropriate of this. and i also want to, you know, definitely get it right. i'm not sure if we're there yet. but i hear you.

supervisor preston. >> commissioner preston: would echo the sentiment of both the chair and supervisor peskin around getting this right. and, you know, i think -- i think all of us supportive of and all of us i think have enjoyed the experience of our streets and shared spaces being activated. so it's sad it took a pandemic for us to see the outdoors activated in this way. but it's one of the positive things that come out of a difficult time. yeah. i will save some more general comments and questions until after public comment. but i did, before we go to public comment, just want to hear a bit more about an issue that i think is pretty central to this effort, something i've raised when you all briefed my office and thank you for taking the time to do that last week. you know, the slide or the two

slides, monica, thaw present -- that you presented around the public access and the sort of different models. and i'd like to hear from either of you or the mayor's office just the decision to not return to a public parklet. in other words, you know, we've been through a time when i think all of us were okay with the level of private activity on a public space, because of the desperate situation. and effectively privatizing these spaces. and i think most of us would probably agree that there still needs to be more time with that. that businesses are just, you know, going to be trying to get on their feet in the upcoming months. but looking out further, like looking into next year and the year beyond, this proposes a

move from what was a public parklet with full public access to the three models. and i'd just like to hear the reasoning for that. why not have the longer-term plan be a return to spaces that can be fully accessed by the public? >> supervisor preston, would you like to us address that now or keep that in mind to address after public comment? >> commissioner preston: there may be more to follow up on after. i would love -- it's a pretty fundamental shift in how we approach these spaces. and i think it would help beyond what was in the slide to hear the basis for that change. >> absolutely. no. and i think you're right in hitting that it is a -- it's a balancing act.

i think, you know, one, of course, big constituent in the development of these provisions were our small business community, the very folks who we were trying to help figure out how they can, you know, how we can help them survive and avoid permit closure. and so, you know, it was seen that, you know, being able to use, for example, using the parklet during business hours and to be able, you know, to provide table service there, which had not been allowed before was also pretty central to the adaptation of the parklet kind of type, you know for this use and this purpose. so if we're, you know, we're going to create an outdoor dining program, this is one of the ways we could do it is to create a version of the parklet that allows for that. you know, critically we still have the public parklet option, that is still very much

something that, you know, a sponsor who is not focused on a commercial use can do for the -- for the neighborhood. and also critically the two commercial types or typologists have a public accesses requirement. during daylight hours and during hours of commercial operation, some portion of your site there needs to be some facility, you know, component of it that's available to anyone to sit, you know, irrespective of whether or not you're dining, you're a patron, you're much purchasing anything from that retailer. so there is still a public access provision that applies to all the parklet types, even though for a couple of them the majority of the site can be used during commercial operations, obviously for the business use. >> commissioner preston: thank

you for elaborating and, you know, i think i'll probably have some follow-up. i do just want to note, first of all, the irony that's behind you is a public parklet sign saying that all seating is open to the public. so i like your sign. but also i do think that there's a more significant shift that we just have to be really mindful of in, as this moves forward. i think this effectively will eliminate the public parklet. i can't see very many businesses that are going to want to pay for a public parklet, that anyone can sit at, that they have no control over. where the other option is for $1,000, $2,000 it basically has private space. there may be some individual businesses that want -- once the fees kick in later, can't afford

it or something. but i do think that the septembers are there with the commercial parklets will effectively replace most of the public parklets. just wanted to note that. and also i think, you know, one of the areas that we should look at -- i want to say that i appreciate the inclusion of some public access space, i don't think how the public weighs in that like one little bench on a parklet, i think the spirit is right of having a nod to and acknowledging that there needs to be some public space. some initial thoughts and looking forward to the discussion. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: thank

you very much, supervisor preston. i really appreciate your comments. i would also -- we'll put comments at the end, after public comment. i just also wanted to point out, in addition to what you just did, that it also mark the fundamental shift at the curb between private car storage to social activities, which is dining out, which we want to support. because otherwise people could just, you know, order stuff from grubhub and eat it at home. you want to make sure they're out and about. that's a thing that's good for the city. so with that, if there's no other comments or questions -- colleagues, let's go to public comment. >> chair. , supervisor safai. >> supervisor melgar: oh, no. welcome. we didn't know you were here. [laughter] >> sorry. i just wanted to say some brief

marks. >> supervisor melgar: please. >> supervisor safai: i just wanted to thank the mayor and the co-sponsors supervisor mandelman, haney and stefani for being part of this. thank you for having this robust conversation today, chair. i appreciate the comments from supervisor preston and peskin. and thank you, robin for all of your hard work on this. i know that this has been one of the things that very similar to some of other conversations on the city-wide levels. i think having spent time -- some of the times i've met with supervisor peskin in his district, in shared spaces. he didn't say this before i got here, i know that his district probably has the most shared spaces. but also has one of the highest concentrations of restaurants and cafes in the city. and so many of our businesses --

i know that this is a little bit off the -- so many of these businesses are hurting, not only for their customer base and their gross receipts, but also in back rent. this is something we're talking about over the next few weeks that a lot of commercial tenants are hurting in terms of how they're going to survive. this has been a lifeline, this is something that's provided a place for people to be out as the restrictions have lessened and make people feel safer, many of them seniors, many of people that don't feel comfortable being around others, to be out there with families and children. it is something that i think that if we had tried and i'm a city planner by training, if we had tried as planners to do this, would never have happened in san francisco. and so i just -- i just want to

say i am in full support of making these permanent, like many of you. i think there are some tweaks that need to be -- continue to have conversations around. i know that those in the disability community want to have their concerns heard a little bit more. i know that one of the things that i have heard and i think we tried to adjust this in the most recent piece of legislation is the initial fee. all businesses are not created equal. all businesses don't have the same gross receipts. and so i know that we tried to adjust the initial fee conversation. but maybe that's something else to consider. someone that might not as of a robust business, even though they're getting access to that initial permit, the cost of that for one business, based on their revenue, employees and so on, is very different than another one. and so the amount of space

that's being taken away or utilized in the public right-of-way or on the sidewalk or the extension of the business, might be different based on the frontage of the business. just really wanted to say i think this is something that as for the vibrantry, we remade our city in a way we couldn't imagine to. i'm happy to be part of this conversation. also want to thank the small business commission and those that have been really pushing this conversation to help and continue to provide lifelines for our small businesses. i'm here to listen, to hear what folks have to say, to continue to work with robin and his team and this commission and this committee, sorry. this committee to really get the right piece of legislation, as we finalize this. and make this a permanent part of san francisco's landscape.

thank you, madam chair. >> supervisor melgar: thank you very much, supervisor safai. thanks for your work on this. with that, why don't we take public comment on this. madam clerk, i just want to remind folks in the queue that we are talking about the shared spaces program only. if you want to give public comment on item number 4, the business recovery stuff, just please wait to do that. you will have a chance to do that as well. thank you so much. madam clerk, please go to public comment. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we're checking to see the number of callers in the queue. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. you only need to press star 3 once to be added. the system will indicate that you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your

comments. we have 67 listeners on the line with 45 in queue. jim, if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> caller: hi. i want to thank the supervisors for bringing this legislation forward and thank staff for their hard work on this. my name is cliff barker. i live in poprero hill. i agree with the concerns about public parklets in the long-term. i think what we should do, as much as we can, to ensure that these do become public spaces. i think as this program is presented, it's a huge lifeline for our incredible vital small businesses. and it's just such an improvement over the pre-pandemic status quo of how we allocated our street paces.

on friday afternoon i volunteered with some friends to wrap up bike-to-work day. we were seated outside at a bar between 16th and 17th streets. and a band set up right next to where we'd been seated and just having people dancing in the street, as we were eating and this public parklet shared space was just an amazing experience. and i hope we never go back to when that would have been just been cars zipping by valencia and zipping by the bike lane, instead it can be so much more than that. so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. my name is rachel herbert. i own dolores park cafe. thank you for having this meeting. i think shared spaces is really

important for the vibrancy of businesses in san francisco. and it's something that's helped keep my business economically viable throughout the pandemic. it's a lifeline. and, you know, 15 years ago when i opened the cafe, i had to petition the city to have -- to be allowed to have outdoor seating on this patio space. and i called upon one of the pioneers of urban planning al jacobs, who has been very active in san francisco urban planning. and he had to come to my support. it was this huge thing. and we've come such a long way. and we've been such an example to the rest of the country. i would just ask that we continue to do so and that we clarify the future of the shared spaces program and we don't delay finalizing the program. we just continue to discuss it.

and figure out how we're going to do it. thank you very much for the time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. we can hear you. go ahead. >> caller: great. this is kathleen dewart. thank you, supervisors, for letting us talk. i live on the 1100 block of york street. and there's a parklet across the street from me. we experienced a lot of issues around noise, traffic being blocked, foot traffic being blocked, loitering, public urination and littering. and it's -- it seems that complaints go to 311 and that's been a long process and not

much, that i can tell, has happened. so i have reached out to the co-owner of the parklet myself. and he's agreed to relocate the parklet. and so that seems to be i think the best resolution. so my two asks are, i have a general ask that the legislation becomes more specific and more widely available. because in the shared spaces and the parklet site, there's not really information about how -- where to go for complaints and 311 says that they can't do a lot about it. and i think better issue resolutions and more guidelines around what the noise decibel level should be, violations like public urination, loitering, things like that. like what are the specifics around that would be really helpful. and i would also like to find

out if a parklet is going to be relocated, who do we talk to. some kind of service-level agreement, so there's an expected turnaround time to resolve issues. because folks get frustrated and less likely to compromise and look for mutually agreeable solutions. so i think the more specificity the better. that's it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have 72 listeners and 49 in queue. >> caller: good afternoon, chair melgar and commissioners preston and peskin. i'm speaking on behalf of community living campaign to delay this item by two weeks, in solidarity with senior and disability action. we know that our small businesses are hurting. and that this program could be a

great help to them. but this city and frankly all cities have a history of making changes to help one group, that end up harming other groups. changes to sidewalks, curbs and parking often have the unintended consequence of making life more difficult for seniors and adults with disabilities. and at a time when these populations have really born the brunt of covid isolation, just so that they can survive, we have to ensure that our city design welcomes back seniors and adults with disability with smart and accessible design from the start. this can be achieved through a robust plan with the community, which we don't feel have been done with this program. throughout the pandemic, disability advocates all over the country have had to actively challenge shared spaces designs that have limited accessibility for folks who use wheelchairs,

folks who use walkers. and in san francisco, we can do better. we can lead the country in a truly accessible design. for these very needed spaces, but we need more time to work together to do that. so i urge you to delay this item, just for several weeks to allow that to happen. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, supervisors. my name is david wu. with the filipino cultural heritage district. we must be aware and clear that this program would permanently privatize public space. any permanent implementation of this must require an equitable planning and implementation process. this shouldn't be rushed and we should really take our time to ensure that residents, small businesses, cultural districts, neighborhood-based organizations and community members have the act to give input and shape this discussion and outcomes.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. wu. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is marie sorenson. i'm on the land use committee. this one-size-fits-all to planning is really the lazy way out. it doesn't take into consideration the cultural districts, like ours, chinatown, castro, who have parades and big events. we require the whole street. we have taken the time to determine how we want our neighborhoods to look like and how to live in. now our district designs could be rendered useless by the likes of the chamber of commerce and the mayor. you're creating an outdoor dinefree-for-all, now we know te

neighbors don't really know, unless they see the notice of somebody wanting to put in a parklet. oh, brother. and also as somebody who is a senior and disabled, it's a gauntlet walking down the sidewalk trying to navigate my way in front of an outdoor dining, in front of a parklet, in front of people that are not paying attention to me. it's quite frankly dangerous. we need to rethink this. and i also want to say on another note, i was at the planning commission hearing and i was absolutely appalled at the behavior of the planning commissioners and bullying katherine moore, when she was the -- when she said this is a very rushed proposition. we need to talk about this and take more time. and they basically shouted her down. so please, please take the time,

send this back. talk about it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. yes. this is -- hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. please proceed. >> caller: hi. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is lori thomas, the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association and owner of two restaurants. i'm calling in to please ask that you support this legislation. and the fact that we have it now is such a positive result for our city. and our restaurants and everyone that's worked so hard on this. our restaurant association represents hundreds of restaurants and cafes. and our members' survive is key to san francisco's recovery. i just want to point out that shared spaces has been critical for re-hiring employees. and if you look at it for about every 20 seats that you see in a parklet or on the sidewalk, that

equates to at least hires one or two more employees and getting them back working with benefits. so i strongly feel that we cannot delay on this. and that we need clarity on how this will be extended and when it will be extended. and putting it off now i fear will only discriminate against restaurants, who can't afford to take advantage of the program. we've had sidewalk and table permits for years. we know we can adhere to a.d.a. and we know we can work with restaurants in our communities to make this work. making shared spaces permanent will also help us bring back the tourists and their spending money that we need to again bring back more san francisco jobs. we're still at 50% capacity inside, many of us have taken on debt and wonder about our survival. in a recent survey, 84% of our members relied -- replied saying the continuation of the program was super key to survival. i hear everybody offering to

help on this. but we really, really would like to move this forward, to have a chance to continue to recover and employ our workforce. thank you for supporting this item. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: hi. this is bob planthold. i wanted to point out what's being neglected or overlooked. and the cursory way that you're hearing information. but, first, off you never hear of the d.p.w. access coordinator being involved in any of this. his name isn't mentioned. his office, his job title is not mentioned. somebody from planning, somebody from m.t.a., well, this person from d.p.w. has been doing this longer than any of those who presented or who on the sidelines ready, willing to comment. he's more experienced, he's more knowledgeable. why isn't he part of this

presentation? why isn't he part of this process this goes into the question of why people who are running this program have no background or experience in access. yes, i can consult with m.o.d. but that's a delay in handling that. in addition, the idea of safety is just not part of the responses. i put in a complaint. it's still not abated about an unsafe parklet. nobody is doing anything about it. i mentioned how in one block of church street, you have to go all the way to 294 church street, almost the length of block, before you can find a curbside space. because the rest of the block is filled with parklets and a muni stop and yellow loading zones. well, we hear that there can be changes. but nobody will acknowledge when staff are directly asked, are you going to take some away. we're hemming and huhing, we get

just delays, well, of course, we've -- that's wrong that that happened. nobody is willing to take responsibility for a glitch, a screw-up, an error. it's all, mmm, okay, yeah, that can be done. this doesn't bode well. it doesn't make us trust planning, m.t.a., you folks on the supervisors. you're passing legislation because it appeals to people who -- >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: my name is paul. i'm a resident of the inner mission. i wanted to emphasize the point that someone touched here, which is right now there's only two sides really represented in this conversation, which is the city and restaurateurs and small businesses. but there's a third member here which is the residents or someone you call neighbors.

and their voice is not in any way, shape or form heard here. and they're the ones getting the brunt of this program, whether it's by excessive noise, safety and traffic congestion, substantial negative effects on retail properties. and in general no idea of who and what and where to complain. the nice lady had mentioned a comment about york street. and what happens to the restaurateur if they're not collaborating with its neighbors? our lives for the last year, year and a half have been extremely difficult. this is not to say that we don't support it. we actually in the inner mission have many, many restaurants. it's just a ton of them that completely abuse what the program does today. and there's no clear path for neighbors to -- or residents to file complaints and get answers from the city. everybody passes the buck to someone else.

no one tackles that. again like the program -- an emphasis a lot of ways to implement a long-term program that's suitable for success. but not at the expense of the representation neighbors. it is very concerning that the topic isn't front and center to this conversation. minor changes could be done to improve it, whether it's the design of the parklet or like combating noise, combating the traffic congestion, the general drop-off. it's completely not on the agenda. it's extremely concerning. thank you thank you. next speaker, please, you'll have two minutes. the system prompt will say you've been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: hi. this is ben wyman. i'm the president of the entertainment commission. today i'm calling as a citizen and as the organizer of the san francisco bar owner alliance. a group of 473 individual bar owners in the city of san francisco. everybody has equity in a bar in

the city. we've been absolutely devastated by the pandemic. we are deeply, deeply in debt. many of us do not know how if we're going to dig ourselves out of the hole. for many of us the p.p.p.p. funds were not forgivable, because we were unable to hire staff to cover the p.p.p. fund as we owed. i want to make sure everybody on this committee understands the depth of the issue that we have. we are not one year away from recovering. we are many, many years in many cases and possibly decades. we need immediate help. we need help now. we need all of the people on this committee, who to their credit, have all voiced very strong support for the small business community during the pandemic. and supervisor peskin, we worked together on your office and i worked together on the delivery caps. and the commercial rent lease

legislation. it has been the one thing that's allowed us to start to dig ourselves out. we need certainty. it costs a lot of money to invest in and maintain. the new rules would bring everybody into compliance, not push people further out of compliance, which is all the more reason we need this and we need this now. i appreciate all of you voting in support of this today. and one final thing. i just -- i don't understand the argument and i'm sorry, but i don't understand the argument about how taking away parking spaces from private cars and turning over to the public for private businesses is somehow a privatization of public space. that doesn't make sense to me. so sorry, but it doesn't. thank you very much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hello, my name is ryan gilbert. my business is the bar in dog patch. and much like ben just noted, we've been shut down for 14

months now. we just recently reopened at limited capacity. our entire staff was laid off. we're in debt. the parklets -- we're using two parking spaces. and it has been a lifeline. it's helped us to at least bring a couple people back to work. and hope that in the future we'll be able to recover and big ourselves out of debt and make this a viable business again. i think it's really worth noting that we -- as businesses, we need the clarity as well as quickly as possible on whether it is permanent or not. i think what you'll find is the parklets may not be monitored as well, may not be designed well right now. that's simply a matter of us not knowing that we have them. business owners take a lot of pride in their design and their spaces and once they realize it's permanent, they're going to

put money into it. and you're going to find a real beautification of the streets, that was not there before. so please do make a decision soon. and i think you'll see business owners react in a way that will please everyone, and that includes a.d.a. compliance and everything. no one wants to build these things in a shoddy way. we all want to make it nice. so thank you again for taking up this legislation. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: thank you, supervisors, for being champion for small businesses in san francisco. and for your consideration in making this program permanent. eye phil chan and the owner of woodbury here in the soma. shared spaces was i think the one critical lifeline that kept us in business for the second half of 2020. you know, we're reopening with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. and the revenue from the shared spaces program last year was --

is probably the only reason we're able to keep going and continue reopening this year. we operate in the soma, which is largely a commercial neighborhood. we didn't have much of a built-in neighborhood customer base or neighborhood regulars. last year soma was pretty much a ghost town. when we opened up our parklet, we kind of created a safe gathering place for the people still there. and it allowed us as a business to reopen and bring back eventually all of our staff. and even when we first -- we were one of the first to construct a parklet in the end of june. and we followed the guidelines. we made sure there was an a.d.a. accommodation area. we made sure that our spaces were accessible for wheelchairs. and we're all prepared to continue to comply. i strongly support this as a landscape for san francisco. to continue to improve the parklet and continue recovery.

thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hey, there. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hello. hi. my name is brian sherman, i can live in noe valley. i'm a resident, not a business owner. but shared spaces has been really great for me. i would really urge the supervisors to support the proposed plan. i love the conscientious approach to equity and safety in the proposal. i think creating a permanent, legal path forward will do a lot to ensure compliance and to kind of standardize things. i also really hear the concerns of privatization of public spaces and i would love to see reserving some or all of the parklets for public use, kind of clarified or improved, especially with being enforced. the other benefits accruing to the public like in terms of permit fees, additional tax on revenue and additional

employment, it really makes this feel like a net-positive for the city as a whole to me. also the city feels like a lot more of a community than it has in the past, in a lot of neighborhoods. my fiancee and i really love this and would love to see it continue. thanks so much. >> clerk: thank you. we have 72 listeners and 37 left in queue. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. i'm an attorney in san francisco. and i'm calling in support of the current version of the permanent shared spaces legislation. and i urge this committee to do the same. as you heard from previous callers, it is critical that this legislation be supportive by all of you, so that many small businesses may recover from this pandemic. this legislation directly supports small businesses. it will strengthen our hospitality industry, it will support the revitalization of tourism and assist in the overall economic recovery of our

city. please move this legislation forward. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is renee curran. i have lived in san francisco since 1993. yeah, i've been a fan of the parklets as a temporary measure. but making them permanent i'm not a fan of. i appreciate that it's gotten businesses through the pandemic. and i support allowing them to continue for a while. you know, tenants here in san francisco have had to rely on piecemeal extensions of the eviction and rent moratoriums. so i don't see the harm in small businesses also, you know, not knowing that the situation is going to be permanent. and i do have a big concern about the private use of public

land. and to answer the guy from the bar owners' association, about the difference between private cars parking in the space and a restaurant using the space. well, you know, people don't just park in a space and sell things out of their trunk for hours. and drivers don't get to reserve the space so that no one else can use it. so i do think that there's no reason to rush to this. and, you know, let's see what happens. let's extend it for a certain number of months and revisit the issue. there's absolutely no reason to make a decision to make this kind of thing permanent right now. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hello. my name is richard rothman. my wife and i have mobility

issues. i have lived in this city all my life. worked for the city. and i know everybody has had a hard time with this shutting down. but i think seniors especially, closing j.f.k., closing the upper great highway. and you know, as i drive around the city, bothers me most about this program is the unused space. i mean, we have these restaurants aren't open 24 hours a day. and what if i want to go to a hardware store or get a hair cut or go to a bookstore saturday morning, when the restaurants are closed. why can't -- and encourage the businesses to put up these parklets when they're open. you know, we've got all of these h.c.d. companies -- these high-tech companies, i'm sure they could come up with designs to fold out and come out. that's the whole idea why we

have parking meters in the city turnover, so people come and shop in the district and not tie up all of these parking spaces. i don't know. i went down chestnut street. it's all full parklets there. how can anybody park there. i do most of my shopping now in san mateo county. you know, i think maybe the restaurants might do okay. but i think other businesses are going to hurt. and as my friend said, no parking, no shopping. so i think -- i don't mind them having parklets. i think they should only be up and in use when the businesses are opening. so everybody gets to use the street and not tie them up 24 hours a day. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> caller: hello. my name is tony. i'm with the poor guys group and

showdown. just like everyone has been hit hard with covid. i think without the parklets, it would have. impossible to -- it would have been impossible to save our locations. on that note, we're swimming in debt that will take us a good part of a decade to recover from. i'm all for having the parklets permanent. i hear everyone else complaining about parking and ease of use. and i understand. it would be nice to get some clarification from the city exactly how they should be built. we deal with different departments coming and making it very confuses, because they're not all working together. i think we're able to conform to whatever the city puts out. just be nice to get some clear direction. if you want them foldable and taken away, whatever you want. just some guidance would be great that having these things permanent is really a godsend and he wouldn't be here without them. i urge you to push this forward,

please, and make it permanent. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have 72 listeners with 46 in queue. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jessica lum. i'm calling from the san francisco travel association. i'm calling for support the shared spaces legislation. this legislation creates a consistent framework and guidelines for permitting, access, entertainment and enforcement for all types of shared spaces. and we hope that you'll support the program and the intent so that can offer a long-term activation of our streets. activating the streets will attract businesses and residents to support small businesses in our neighborhoods and jump start our economic recovery for the city. prior to the pandemic, the tourism industry helped generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the general funds and employed tens of thousands of people. we hope you support this shared spaces legislation to help

revitalize our city and the tourism industry. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. hel >> caller: hello. i'm i want to call and support shared spaces. just for a couple of reasons. the economic growth and innovation in the future. then also -- rivals seen it as just like an opportunity for like different businesses of like, you know, especially like myself and my hispanic background. just innovating respectively as well. an example of this is i -- a i went to this empanad place.

i've been supporting them for the past year. at the beginning of the pandemic, they were coming up, they were so close to closing down, that they had to advertise i.o.u. cards, gift cards, which was great. i saw the owner. he was like, you know, depressed at that time, smoking outside, sometimes. after the shared spaces came out for him, i've seen him like adding cute little things, outside in the area more. which are really appreciated. and now maybe i'm catching him on the right time of his smoke breaks or not, i don't know. but he seemed a lot more -- [inaudible] i do understand that there are some fixes that need to be done and clarifications, re-education through the

interim, with regards to other people's, you know, needs. but i -- [inaudible] this can be innovative piece that could shift like california. so we can pioneer that as san franciscans. anyways. that's it. and thank you for your time. have a good day. i yield my time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sadik. i'm speaking in strong support of making shared spaces permanent. having these spaces for dining and recreation greatly enriches the liveliness and character of our neighborhoods. and there are a few places where outdoor dining makes as much sense as the permits in san francisco. as we plan for the post-covid recovery, and making sure that our restaurants and small businesses, many of whom you've heard from today, can save from

the economic damage inflicted by the pandemic, the shared spaces program is a great tool to help our small businesses survive and thrive. i agree the public parklets are important and i hope you can find even more ways to convert our street space from private car storage to the needed benefit for the whole community. i deeply hope you make the few bright spots to come out of 2020 the future for our city. thank you very much and have a wonderful afternoon. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. my name is chris arvin and i'm a member of the c.a.c. and i'm calling in my personal capacity. i do support the shared spaces. and they have brought a lot of positive outcomes in the past year. i personally enjoy them. but in making them permanent, i want to see them thoughtfully

and that everyone can enjoy. i do want to remind everyone, this is not just about parklets, but involves new uses of the sidewalk. so i was at a meeting with senior and disability action, where shared spaces was presented to them by the city. it was just a few days before this meeting unfortunately. and the shared spaces director was there. but had to leave early, so the group didn't get all of their questions answered. so i support that group's request that i've sent to you to postpone to make recommendations around accessibility. ly say this with no proactive reinforcement and waive any kind of requirement that is in the bill, so it's kind of concern being what could happen there. as i said, people with disabilities are constantly subject to complaint-based, so they have to face a barrier to get around. and then put a complaint in before they have actually make it accessible. we can do better as san francisco. and on public access, the bill is to pay an extra fee to be only patrons only, to board them

up at night, leaving them unused. the public bench requirement is very weak and also can be waived by the public works director. so i know the old park lifts were very restrictive and couldn't bring your food to you. i want to thank all of the folks of the sfmta, specifically monica who is here today, who created some really solid rules around the parklets. and where they can and cannot go, like in front of bus stops and on transit lines, stuff like that. so they aren't coming at the expense of transit riders. i appreciate sfmta working on that and all of the folks there who have put that work in. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. i'm flo kelly. and i live in district 9.

small businesses make san francisco vibrant, diverse, and a destination for visitors. shared spaces owns streets with parklets in front of those small businesses benefit the businesses for sure. regarding equity, we also need to to think about our neighbors who cannot afford san francisco's housing prices. why not designate certain blocks for people to park, people who live in their vehicles, who need a place to be, where they don't have to constantly move, because there is no overnight parking or whatever parking restriction exists. our most vulnerable neighbors need a share of san francisco's public spaces. thank you for listening.

>> clerk: next speaker. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hi there. >> caller: okay. cool. sorry. i didn't know i was on already. this is aaron calling. i just want to say thank you for putting this together and hearing what we have to say. let me get in a better cell area here. yeah. i own -- i did own two restaurants in the mission district. one is closed forever, due to the pandemic. the other restaurant, while still open and alive, has taken on about $560,000 of business debt, throughout the last year and a half, in order to keep as many employees as we can employed. to keep the restaurant open. the shared spaces program, like many other on the call have been saying, has been an absolute lifeline. p.p.p. and other stimulus would

have pretty much amounted to nothing without this program. it was i think probably the most radical thing that i've seen san francisco do. one of the people from the city who was speaking earlier, the guy who said he was in planning, mentioned that should they have actually tried to think this up and plan it, they never would have been able to achieve it. and i think i agree with that. it was something that was spur of the moment, it was inspired. it was necessary. and so something -- something really, really great for this -- for the city came from it. i can say as a small business owner, you know, and speaking from talking to many of my colleagues, this has been a must to get us through. it will be a must to -- in order to keep us going through with our recovery from this. you know, i don't think any of us are paying off our business debts in the next year or even the next decade. it's two, three decades that we're having to pet these debts off, without these shared

spaces. i think that as a resident here, and as a diner here, they've been hugely beneficial, just, you know, the community that it brings together. people, you know, walking, talking, riding bikes, getting out of their houses. people spending their hard-earned money at small businesses, rather than -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, there. my name is tiffany chung. i'm calling in on behalf of the detour and black bird, we're located on market street in district 8. we've had a really rough year, just like everyone else. we've been closed for most of the past year at the detour. for the black bird, our only saving grace has been the shared spaces program. and it's allowed us to serve our guests in our community. and, you know, it's been well received. the people who have visited have

absolutely loved it. during this time, we have accrued hundreds and thousands of dollars in debt. and it seems impossible to dig ourselves out. having the shared spaces program to stay would be a much-needed lifeline to get back on track. we need to figure out what our path forward is, as it takes thousands of dollars that we already don't have to mr. out a parklet that's to code, comfortable, a, you know, attractive enough for guests to want to visit. we would be eager to get everything up to standards. but like most of the other business owners on this line, we're reluctant to invest more money if the shared spaces program isn't here to stay. the reality is we need to get back to business, our staff needs to get back to work. i'm confident that we can come to some type of happy medium that satisfies the needs of the residents, our seniors, our community groups and the like. we desperately need your support

to help small businesses recover for the years to come. this goes way beyond like saving the businesses that we work so hard to build. it's our livelihood for us small business owners, it's the livelihoods of our family. it's the livelihoods of the families that have been in the struggle with us for the past year. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am an organizer in the mission. and i'm just calling in to ask that we continue the temporary version of our shared space program for another 12 months, while we make charges to provide meaningful and equity solutions to our immigrant mom and pop business owners and fix other

issues. this current program favors larger and better resources businesses. a lot of the businesses in the corridor, that i work with, are trying to compete amid the pandemic, yet the city makes it harder for them to share the same equitable access, they're paying expensive fees fors 1s. i truly believe we should not blanket the fees. let the communities or the neighborhoods decide how they're able to find a solution to make sure p-shared spaces -- make sure the shared spaces are right. continue the current version of the shared spaces legislation, to give us more time to work through these issues. thank you for considering my concerns. >> clerk: thank you very much. we have 38 left in queue. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i own and operate three restaurants in san francisco with my husband. quinn's, katonai located in jon square and the financial district, respectively. out of the three restaurants, two are closed and one is open. and throughout the pandemic, the story and fate of our restaurants has been the story and success of shared spaces. our one restaurant katonia that took advantage of the program and, as a result, is open and viable. the other two have not been able to participate in the program and are both closed with an urn certain future path. shared spaces has made that large of an impact to us. the difference between staying open and being closed. it is an economic lifeline that we need, allowing to us employ currently over 100 people. i strongly urge the board of

supervisors to overtly support small business and the workforce by making the shared spaces a permanent program in san francisco, without delay. it is created a safe harbor for so many, guests and employees alike. and beyond the financial security, the shared spaces represents culturally what i think san francisco is known for the world over, a spirit of reinvention, open mindedness and community. thank you very much in advance for your much-needed support today of the shared spaces program. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, supervisors. i'm the owner of a bar and restaurant on fillmore street pacific heights. i'm limited in time. i want to say the shared spaces program has had a profound impact on our business. allowing us to hire back almost 20 of the 33 staff that we employed before covid who were all laid off at the first

shelter-in-place. i wanted to focus on the public access issue. those of us who serve alcoholic beverages do need the ability to prevent the public from sitting in our parklet during operating hours, so we can comply with requirements. at my business, we do allow the public to utilize our parklet, when we're not open. but there are many operators in various areas of the city who have to restrict access to prevent constant and relentless vandalism. it's the unfortunate nature of the city we live. we put $50,000 into our parklet to create something beautiful to enjoy and also look at temperature we complied with all a.d.a. requirements. we closed by 10:00 a.m. every night. i'm sure a few bad actors who received negative comments from neighbor. [ please stand by ]

>> while our company had the reserves to be able to keep all of our locations open. it will take us some time to restore that safety net. shared spaces has been a huge asset to our business.

we continue to get support and we appreciate it from the supervisors and we would encourage them to vote for the shared spaces and small business recovery act. as we all realize that you guys want us to recover. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kenneth russel. i'm a resident in district 7. i'm calling to voice strong support for shared spaces. as many others have said, this has been one very bright spot in the pandemic and as you've really helped our city to become the best city ever. and much better use of our public lands in car storages. we just support this and extend

our beautiful program. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. hello, caller. you are on the line. hello, caller. jim, let's take the next, please. >> hello. can you hear me? >> yes. please proceed. >> hello, my name is josh harris and i'm a san francisco native, a resident, and i own some businesses in the mission district two of which are bars and restaurants.

just like all eating and drinking establishments across the globe, we've been decimated by the pandemic. 50 people made off in march of last year with over a million dollars in debt. we have not been closed to force permanently which is has been the greatest news for us because we still have a chance to re-open and make it through. shared spaces is something that i focus on what the help it gave to people to survive now. i'm looking at what comes now and into the future. the bar and landscape of san francisco has been so volatile before the pandemic. the pandemic has highlighted how volatile that was and it is

a major part of the personality and the economy in san francisco and is snow balling to its destruction. when we look at what are the opportunities that exist to help recalibrate the landscape to help the eating and drinking businesses and make all of our neighborhoods in our city so special, this is something that's major, it is a major opportunity for us to help recalibrate. and so i urge you to support the shared spaces legislation without any amendments permanent to help the eating and drinking establishments to find new ways to survive and not sink that into the status quo which is certainly doomed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have 38 left in queue. >> hi, my name is bruce wolf.

today i'm speaking on behalf of myself as a resident of the asbury district. i'm also a person with disabilities, so i echo all the comments and the call for to continue this item for at least two weeks so that we may address issues of not just disability community but any other protected groups that might be affected by this. one additional thing i wanted to mention is about the definition of neighbors. i think it's unfair to have a definition of something like that for every different type of regulation. you have one for for everyone to understand exactly what that means one was behind the

building that's not even two stories tall so that echos back and forth on the store fronts on hay street and i can't sit and watch tv in my living room without having a constant stream of loud noise and music playing for a long time. i support my merchants in my neighborhood. i shop there locally. i've been there for 30 years, but i think this is kind of like an bill, this is a broad breaststroke and some of it needs to be separated out and further discussed. so i urge you to continue the item for at least two weeks and address the communities that have not been engaged that would be affected by this. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, mr. wolf.

next speaker. >> hello. my name is william railing. a resident of district 3 and i'm making this comment on behalf of san francisco. we appreciate the progress that has been made and addressing accessibility concerns about this program. however, i need to tell you there is still quite a ways to go with potentially severe consequences for ignoring this problem. consequences for the very businesses you're trying to help. accessible san francisco is an explicitly anti-lawsuit organization. so we're asking you not to set this trap for the needy business owner who is need this guidance. without a procedure in the ordinance for more technical guidance and accessibility review for the business owners, you're creating a massive trap for the business owners and a massive opportunity for the high volume a.d.a. lawyers which the city has so

successfully held at bay in recent years for review and endorsement. the idea you can create a new inaccessible outdoor dining space because you're providing and allegedly providing an equivalent experience or opportunity elsewhere is simply not in the a.d.a. or in the california bill and code. this is because they are new spaces. and when sued, the fact that the city approved the restaurant expansion provided zero lawsuit, the city has no authority to wave civil rights and restaurants have no reason to rely on the bad advice they're getting for the city. i thank you very much for listening to this comment and keep in mind conceptually that requirements for this program with hundreds of thousands of restaurants expanding all at once are exactly the same as one restaurant when it expands. so thank you and good luck with

the legislation. >> thank you, for your comments. next speaker. we have 31 left in queue. >> hi, i live in bernal heights, district 9. i was a big fan of the park lites. it's a much better use of i want some versions of this project to become permanent about the private station like this is a public park. legislation passes that is the case. if businesses can restrict who's allowed to use the space and walk it off entirely, this is now private space. the public is laughable. there's no stipulations for

capacity or quality. and it more overs proves that the daylight hours attacks our house neighbors to prevent them. i'm sure the public space giving businesses the walking access is a huge overreach. it's pretty telling how many business owners without amendments including accessibility. we can't prioritize the needs of business owners. i will allow changes requiring that during business hours and a stipulation that must not be limited after hours. and to that end, solidarity with stable people i would

let's keep our public land public. i'm a biker and the closures are great, but it's also a very important bike corridor and i would love legislation about keeping that open for bikers and avoid mixing where bikers and pedestrians are in the same right of way. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is chris hariot from district eight. outdoor dining has been one of the few silver linings of last year considering how many people are using the space when it's outdoor dining while creating value for the community is exactly what we need most. i respect the issues by callers

about accessibility and noise and hope it can be addressed with consequences instead of handing out vetoes in city hall. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, my name's kenzie bennish. i'm a co-owner of the cambio cantina. i'm in full support of keeping the shared spaces program. we've been open ever since covid happened but only outside. we've only been able to use the outside. still, to this day, we don't have any customers come inside our establishment. it is definitely the only reason that we're still able to operate. we would love to continue to have people visit us. we'd love to have our staff

come back on full time and i don't see how ending programs or trying to restrict programs such as this is going to help out any type of small business especially restaurants here in the city that's already so challenging to operate and to try and find new ways to have online, not third party apps, but just to try and invite people to come to a space that we've invested in and take care of every morning. we walk down there, we make sure that the space is clean. we have our shared space open for people for the laundry mat. when we're not there, we invite people and neighbors to come and sit down if we're not even open to bring their own food to walk their dog in the morning, take a seat in the sun to do their laundry. this program again is vital to us and i hope that everyone today can come to an agreement

and hopefully. >> thank you for your remark. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jordan wang with bay streets in the bay area. i'm calling to support this bill and advance it to the full board. spaces like saxophone players and family string cortettes. musicians and performers and the city otherwise a whole. to concern about public access. for car storage. second, i personally love the public park lites, the previous

consideration of the park i've also spent recent reaching out and people want to keep the park lites and shared spaces an. the community of small businesses on the block that just hadn't been shared before.

rather than delaying small issues in advance. i urge you to pass this if we learn their unexpected consequences from balancing the repeating concerns that we've heard. i urge you to support in advance this legislation. >> thank you. we have 28 left in queue. next speaker. >> hello, my name is david sheffield. i'm a resident of district 5 so i live around the corner from a lovely cafe known as [inaudible] cantina that also benefited

greatly from the outdoor space. first and foremost, i'll talk about my personal story. we have two restaurants. one of them is able to have shared spaces, the other is not. one that has been shut down since last year. progress taken on a significant amount of debt up stairs will take the better part of five to six years when there is a tragedy, when there is a problem, when you are looking for someone to help the community, the first people we look to are restaurants, the

people you look to doing fundraisers. they're the people we look to when there's a fire or we need to see first responders. they're also people during this pandemic turn around and created soup kitchens and also people who are just in need. the status quo before the pandemic was that businesses being failed in san francisco constantly and there was more and more closed down store fronts. 100,000 restaurants have been shut permanently. >> clerk: your time has elapsed. thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> i'm on the corner of division and haze. i just want to thank you

supervisors, sfmta, and shared spaces, let's make this program permanent. please push forward on this legislation and allow our restaurants and bars to slowly come out of this mess. we hear positive feedback daily regarding our outdoor space from neighbors, customers, and even recently a few tourists. passing this legislation will have a huge impact on the healing of our great city. thank you all for your time. >> thank you, next speaker. >> i own the oasis south of market on 11th and folsom and we were hit very hard by the pandemic and have many other places.

we acquired a huge amount of debt and had to lay off so much of our staff and the only way that kept us going was the shared space and our park lit i understand the people talking about accessibility and that makes a lot of sense. i do honestly believe that we can work together to create a space that has spaces that are good for business as so many businesses are going to go under if we don't do that as well as keeping them accessible and keeping san francisco small business alive. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> hello. >> clerk: you're on the line,

please begin. >> hi. this is debbie horn and paul miller we're calling in with super strong support for the permanent shared spaces. we're all suffering and intensely completely exhausted. we cannot spend -- please do not delay these decisions any longer as delay is affecting a lot of our friends and small businesses cannot make a plan until we know if we have a future or not so we want to know does the city support us or not. so please support this today, not tomorrow. today please and thank you very much for your time. >> thank you for your comments.

next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is robert. i live in district 5. you know, i'm a big fan of public park lites and public access. before the pandemic, the public according to d.p.w.'s own website. i think the fact that there are now around 1,900 approved shared spaces throughout the city that shows the previous program was not adequate to support shared spaces and the new program is more aligned with what we should be doing, but it's definitely been a much more map of success than the

public an hourly rate or a so please ask for your support in shared spaces with amendments for equity and for compliance. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> chair melgar and supervisor preston and peskin, this is kathryn from the community hill association. we all want our neighborhood

merchants to grow and expand and open, but this proposal is seriously flawed and it's flawed because it does not take into account the ramifications of shared spaces on the residence in the area. the outdoor seating on the street is a benefit to restaurants who are free to increase square footage and i appreciate that, but it doesn't help the hardware stores and the dress designers and the antique shops whose visitors no longer have parking places available. so the issue of the proliferation of shared spaces is really one that needs to be addressed as does the noise, the entertainment, and the

impact on the residents, the families that live above these restaurants and bars. so the outdoor is fine, but it really needs to be explored further because it is incomplete. the issue should be continued, if not, at least for two weeks if not for longer so the issues can be worked out. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have 25 left in queue. >> hi, my name is andrew chung. i'm an owner at schroders, we've been in business for close to 190 years. we've been through a pandemic and earthquake and our future's uncertain now and we've got a long ways toward, you know, the ability to see fast forward.

we're a german beer hall, but we've never been a german beer garden and finally have an opportunity to do that. we do need to move forward before we can invest in our space. i would like to say one thing in regards to cars and the debate over privatization over a public space. you know, currently businesses already have an opportunity to do that by asking to turn the parking spaces in front of their businesses into loading zones -- i can guarantee you that changing the use over to a parklit will actually serve many more people than the ability for a single private car to use there. to use that space during a period of time. and i'd also like to say this is an ability for san francisco to radically change the outlook of the city. when you go to the great cities of the world, you know, it's

pedestrian driven and i know many people say, well, we don't have the public transportation to support that kind of a vision, but i'd argue that we're getting to that place and with the admin of bike shares, increased biking lanes, walking, car shares, you know, we should be actively creating a space where cars and private automobile travel is discouraged and i think will do more towards facilitating that goal than any piece of legislation we can continue plate right now. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, can you hear me? >> hello. >> thank you. this is stephanie peak. i lived in san francisco since 1961 and i opposed the

legislation as it is written now and the reason i oppose it is because in my experience, these outdoor restaurants are nothing like eating outdoors in the great european city. these places, first of all, they're ugly, and second of all, they're all the way out to the curb. that's not the way it is. paris' sidewalks are wide so the tables can be up against the facade and you don't have people walking through. my experience has been on clement street, you know, some kid came by and threw it down on the ground and grabbed her bag and i also agree with the people who are complaining about the kind of noise. that's just not fair. but an idea ahead, there's certain areas where this would

be appropriate if they were nicely designed. thank you all and i hope you don't go ahead with this legislation until you improved it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. and, i am the owner and operator of a lounge on folsom in san francisco soma district. we've taken on an inordinate amount of debt. hundreds of thousands of dollars first of all, mom and pops shop like mine is crazy. shared spaces has allowed me to continue to operate i've been operated to bring in about 50% of my staff. to turn it into a gathering

point. we actually had our neighbors come out and help us build. it's now a gathering point for other business owners and community members throughout the day currently, we don't have it during the day. we've walked it off at night. we've had a lot of issues just in the neighborhood, vandalism that occurs in the evening time and i've gone ahead and made it available. i urge all of you to pass the legislation as it's currently written and if we do need to make it more friendly for everyone, i'm all for that. thank you very much for allowing me to comment.

>> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello, my name is rosa. we actually sent a letter to the full board of supervisors regarding our concerns of the shared space program and wanted to emphasize from business owners who have park lit spaces. mainly, we want to recommend the following to extended the current program to july 2022 to ensure the businessings incorporate as well as the loss from the pandemic. also, to create a payment plan operation. as many businesses have deferred rent that they're still trying to pay back as well as other fees. writing clear guidelines from maintaining the shared space so that owners as well as users know that what they have to do

to maintain the shared space from cleaning it to making sure it's ada accessible and lastly to implement design changes to make sure pedestrians implement and reach their own goals. >> thanks so much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. chair melgar. a member of race inequity and planning coalition and a district 8 resident. we need to take time to do this program right before essentially permanently privatetizing public space to make sure it's equitable and will be a healthy part of our neighborhoods going forward. we should extend the existing temporary program for 12 months as is with no additional fees to our merchants as they take some time to adapt to and assess the new re-opening

environment with their indoor options newly resumed ensuring the residents and neighbors can be addressed and advanced ensuring that our cultural districts and communities across the city are comfortable with how the permanent changes will interact with cultural events and support the needs of our neighborhoods ensuring that seeing your disability action and our neighbors with disabilities across the cities are satisfied with the safety and accessibility as they navigate and shop in their communities for low income business owners who are being asked totary down for code reasons or infrastructure work, otherwise, only high end businesses will be able to keep the structures for the