incredible uncertainty. they need a promise from the city that the city's going to help them recover. it can't help them recover all the revenue they've lost over the past year, but it can also open the door who are enjoying this explosion of just a community we were only getting five applications a year because it wasn't economically viable. it's got to be economically viable. >> clerk: thank you so much. we have two left in queue. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon supervisors. thank you so much for this opportunity. in the restaurant for models on valencia and the mission as well as the outer sunset. we shut our doors, let go over 40 people and staff, promised our creditors, landlords, vendors and paid them back as soon as we could but then the pandemic dragged on. we then started our great entertainment back up in april of 2020 until today. it allowed us to provide entertainment throughout the pandemic through a very terrified and worried public. we've accrued hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of rent, finance

charges, rolling credit debt to vendors who are also struggling to associates for businesses and the permit, our little venues drinks and but we believe in the shared spaces program because we have been using it for a to extend this without amendment pass this legislation that has saved so

many does not mean they're done and they're in to survive much longer. >> clerk: again, this is public comment. now's your time to press star 3 if you have not already. unmute the second to last caller, please. >> hi, my name's chad. i'm a district 7 resident. i just recorded sharky to replay it during my time, but i'm fully in support of shared spaces legislation being passed today without amendments. i think the -- when we think about equity and accessibility, you can't compare it to this

idea of perfect egg fi and perfect accessibility. if you look before covid, we didn't have perfection in those and so i think we often have this problem of letting perfection perfect equity you have to compare it to reality. regardless of the shared spaces and so we absolutely continue to do that. but what are the equity ramifications small business failing. what are the equity ramifications of less employment. and i'm fully in support of all those and say we're in support of small businesses, it's easy to say, it's clearly something that we can do to step small businesses. don't just say it. do it. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. and this will be our last

caller. >> yeah. hi. my name is john moore. i'm a san francisco native. i think this should be extended for one year. i have been listening. i believe it has revitalized san francisco and it has helped businesses. this is a no-brainer anyone with a permit should just extend this out one year and maybe come up with any kind of new rules and regulations and implement them in a year from now, but let's keep our businesses open. a lot of them are on a shoe string. not knowing if they're going to be open another day, another minute. they're losing money, they're going into debt. help your business community and our commercial corridors i

just think that you should just go ahead and extend it for one year and we can then reevaluate everything. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. we actually have one more that popped up. next speaker, please. >> hi, this is flicka mcdebuten. i have sweetie's spark bar on san francisco street and i think that the shared spaces are very important in terms of what we've all been dealing with with the pandemic, they sort of offer an area where we can feel safe. i don't feel that good about going into crowds of people and i don't think i will for a long time feel that great about crowds of people and it's a way for us to help our businesses

take care of our customers and sort of sergeantway slowly inside without endangering everybody because nobody knows who's got the vaccine and nobody knows whose got the problem. so i support the parklet spaces and i hope they become permanent fixtures in san francisco. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comment. madam chair, it looks like that was our last caller in queue. >> chairman: thank you so much, madam clerk. with that, public comment is closed on this item. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: i want to start, madam chair, by thanking all of the callers. and i actually think that in

this moment or actually more than a moment, it's been a year of profound and unprecedented change i actually think we're really all on the same page and this is a very quickly evolving, area of law and regulation and the way we, you know, use our parking spaces. a former colleague of mine for many years ago complained to me that the shared spaces were privatization and i said to that individual, well, they are privateized but they had cars in them and now they're having and in my way of thinking, that's kind of a higher good. it's putting people to work. so i don't think that we are

very far apart on this issue. i also in the same breath don't think we have an emergency, i think that i everyone who has one should continue to have one and by the way i don't think that during the recovery anybody should be charged for them at all. i think we're subsidizing all kinds of things i don't think we should start charging a fee if we have to take general money and give it to the mta, i think we should make that policy decision. i really wanted to start by giving credit where credit is due because early on long

before the pandemic, the notion of using parking spots for public spaces was pioneered by a then member of the planning staff is now a member of the deputy chief of staff's title and i really want to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts he took then and the efforts that he has taken now that we've all undertaken. much of this played out in the early days after the shutdown in north beach and i was running around with businesses and others those metal barricades from the port and the cops and d.p.w. to do what

ultimately 500 block during public comment. where the concentration is and where the concentration is indeed not surprising. 423 of them in the northeast corner of san francisco district 3 and it has been a game-changer and it has been a lifesaver and i think we need to do it right. having said that, we're under no time constraint, you know, there was i think a manufacturer notion of these were all going to go pacify on june 30th we've talked to

public works. we've talked to the city attorney. none of these permits are going away any time soon. i think we have a lot of time to get this right. i think behaviors are going to change. i know restaurants that can't wait to get rid of their parklets and go to 100% indoor dining and don't have the physical and staff ability to service them. this is all going to reach an equilibrium and i'm happy to talk about that, but i very much would like to extend this program without hesitation, without purpose of evasion, without one single feat, zero, nada. this is the wrong time to charge them. we should talk about how they should be charged, but i also wanted to deal with something that i brought up earlier and this is related to the policy

issue, but most importantly related to the very late and i'd like to ask mr. eagan why he, a, chose to write a report on in insofaras his ordinance allows him to do it or not and why he decided to data dump within the last minute. so i'd like to hear from mr. eagan. i find this to be curious if not professional. >> good evening, supervisors. ed eagan, controller's office. to your question, supervisor peskin, we made a determination that we needed to do an economic impact report on this item because of the number of shared spaces that had been

installed in the past year which i recall was in the low thousands and if this legislation were to allow to make them permanent, that could substantially affect the space that the city and county of san francisco devotes to outdoor dining or to all kinds of restaurant uses. as we made clear in our report, we think the two main economic issues are are there economic benefits to sponsoring restaurants from expanding their space and to the outdoors and are there economic harms or risks to other businesses that don't sponsor shared spaces from the loss. we're particularly referring to the curb side shared spaces and the bulk of the pandemic. given the sheer number of them that might be made permanent during this as a consequence of

this legislation being passed, we felt it was important to do that analysis and the results of the analysis are there appears to be business that is do sponsor the shared spaces. may i finish, supervisor. and, our second conclusion was that we didn't find any significant benefit or harm from businesses that were in the same block as somebody else's shared space. in other words, they did essentially just as well as other businesses in the same industry that were nowhere near a parklet. that's why we chose to do this report. in terms of the process, i apologize that it feels late to you. we aim to have our reports completed by the time i am heard in committee and we are happy to explain the report, what they mean, what the findings mean during the committee date.

we'd like to get them done before the committee date. unfortunately, in this case, it was an unusual heavy lift for the data analysis and we could not get it done. we didn't even know what the results were until last thursday. so i do apologize for being later than what we would like. the process for this one is no different than any of our other processes. we didn't reach out to individual members of the committee. it's just a report was completed later than we want. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i still have the floor. may i proceed? >> chairman: go ahead, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: mr. eagan, today is may the

24th so you could not give this to not only decision makers, but members of the public until an hour before this committee hearing. that's pretty outrageous, don't you think? >> as i said, supervisor, i did not have the results of the analysis completed until last thursday. we drafted the report on friday and over the weekend. we issued it first thing this morning and, again, this is not the first time that we have issued a report on the day of the committee hearing. our goal is to which we regularly meet is done on or before the day of the committee hearing. >> supervisor peskin: all right. let me ask you this, mr. eagan, have you analyzed what a parking spot is worth to the mta? what's a parking spot worth to the mta in your analysis, sir? >> i have not. we were not able to do that in

this analysis. >> supervisor peskin: oh, madam chair, anybody from the mta is anybody up here? you're doing economic impact and you're not telling this committee what the detriment to the mta is. what kind of analysis is that? is there anybody here from the mta who can tell us what an average parking spot is worth. >> supervisor, if i may, monica with our department is with the mta, this analysis was provided and supplied as part of the action that the mta board took earlier this month for companion shared spaces which is definitely some reference to potential rejected impacts to meter revenue, but i it over to monica and talk about more details. >> sure. i know there's a lot of different ways to dissect this data.

the numbers i have offhand just to provide one framing of things is that of the 2,800 parking meters in san francisco, about 1,700 are occupied by shared spaces and they range depending on the district how much that meter just thinking about meter rates in how much the space is worth and the bayview, for example, i know our meters on average collect about $20 a day. so that would come out to $706,000 a year and value would be $25,000 a year. i know that's not quite the answer to your question, but in terms of meter recovery, those are some kind of a scale of what those take in today or would have. >> supervisor peskin: i appreciate that. and, by the way, i do have the answer because jeff tumlin did

the median answer and you're absolutely right ms. munowich different parts of the city present different rates. but, mr. eagan, i am not only chagrin by the fact you dumped this on the committee at the last minute, but your analysis is deficient inso faras, you don't tell us and the answer is about $4,800 a meter citywide and they are higher in other parts of the city and lower in other parts of the city, but your analysis respectfully through the chair is deficient, sir, and late. >> i would accept, supervisor, that it's not something we considered in our report. we did not unlike other reports attempt to fully quantify all

the economic impact. for example, shared spaces might very well affect property value one way or the other. we didn't do that analysis either. we didn't say what's the total citywide job impact of having shared spaces or not. we didn't even try to project how many shared spaces are going to persist or how many new will be done each year. it's an extremely complicated topic. we've produced the report we did because we were confident in the findings that i already shared with you and that they might be of interest to the decision makers. if there are other items or aspects of the economic impact, you would also be interested in, i fully understand that. we just don't have that for you at this time. >> i think if you had submitted them respectfully, timely, we could all have thought about it and the public could have addressed it during public comment. but i would like to go back to the much more conservatory thoughts that i had early on.

thank you, madam chair for allowing me to express my deep chagrin with mr. eagan and the controller's office over what i consider to be extremely unprofessional behavior. i think that we have to be -- i had a very good talk with robin ibad and the father of parklets mr. power on friday with my staff and as i said earlier, i think that -- i don't think we're very far apart at all. i think we all admitted to one another and i am admittedly apart of this mr. ibad, i am one of the people and i hope

that each and every one of my colleagues were one of the people who encouraged the sfmta and dbw and the planning department to permit these things double fast in real time during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic. i push for them in vacated bus stops that are coming back. i've pushed for them everywhere i could because my friends and neighbors and their employees were withering on the vine. the world is changing very quickly and i think we have to reassess that and one of the things that mr. ibad, you and mr. power said to me was that we all and appropriately so as the government turned a blind

eye to certain aspects of these shared spaces. aspects relative to our collective shared commitment to vision zero. we all know that there are many of these spaces that are right on corners that in the proceeding number of years, we actually turned in to red zones so it would be safer for pedestrians. they're now as a matter of fact more dangerous today than they were prior to our putting them in and i think, mr. ibad and mr. power without putting words in your mouth, what you said to me on friday is those spaces are going to have to come out. i think we all permitted spaces in this hilly city on slopes that are not a.d.a. accessible

and can never be made a.d.a. accessible and they ultimately are probably going to have to come out. what you told me, mr. ibad, on friday that you were actually feel truthing this and you're a couple of weeks out from knowing how many can be modified. how many can instantly be permanently permitted. how many are going to have to be removed. and so as we are recovering, as we're getting back to the new normal, i think that we need truth in advertisement. i think -- and, by the way, i love the permanent spaces, i want them to be permanent we can talk about all of those and i want to be the first to say that a lot of work and very

good policy thinking has gone into these 75 pages. really, a remarkable body of work and i don't want to be the enemy of the good, but i do want the city to say 10% of these are going to go because they're dangerous or because they're not a.d.a. accessible and i think we should be honest about that upfront and i think you told me you're a couple weeks out from finishing that survey. so those are the big thoughts that i wanted to leave my colleagues with on this panel. i think that's the right way of going about it. i would be happy to leave my house and walk two and a half blocks to what i see at 1300 montgomery. i am delighted. the music is great. the vibe is great. the business is great. i want that to stay now and

forever, but i think we have ton honorous. we have to let them amoretize their investment for a period of time. that is the right way for the government to go about this in my humble opinion. having said that, mr. egan, the next time you give this committee report, how about you do it on a thursday or friday. thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston, did you have any further comments? >> supervisor preston: i do. thank you madam chair. you know, i think i'm going to share some thought as opposed to a lot z of back and forth and questions because i have a feeling we will be seeing there again in committee and i really just want to kind of lay out some of the issues that i'm

hoping we can work on between now and then if that ends up being the preference of the -- of my fellow committee members to have this heard again. i do want to say this is a 75-page piece of legislation i would share supervisor peskin's positive words on to those who were involved in preparing this. i think it's a lot of work, a lot of thought, and a lot of things that were done well in here and there are still some things i think we need some work on. come to a land use committee it would be advanced on its first reading committee and so i just want to caution if folks who

have made comments around how long the process has been to the board of it's going to take at least another session and we'll see how long. i do think, you know, just to flag a few issues, one i think we all have our eye and a commitment to making sure these don't just lapse. so there's no june 30th deadline i'm aware of. at least the shared spaces that we advocated for so much in our district. from my understanding has been extended to december 31st. i believe that's the available option for folks and i think depending on our time frame in moving the legislation, we may need to look at something that's out further. one of the things that i'm curious to hear from staff is

just around what the lead-up time is for once this is finalized. i'm assuming we have a final package that gets board approval. how many months it takes for them to implement this program and that's really a question of outreach and getting applications in and so forth, but that i think will determine whether we need another extension while we're trying to finalize this. i think that i've raised the public access issues and want to continue to engage around the public parklet program. i think we have to look at the facts. there was never a reason that program never took off in the way the shared spaces did. one was about $3,000 to do as

well as a long wait and not in the middle of a global pandemic where everyone had to be moving their business outside. so i think it's kind of apples and oranges to say there was only a certain number before there were 1900 of the current shared spaces and, therefore, one's a superior model to the one before. is to hear what the experience, what would it look like to do more like the parklet model with public access or frankly the middle model that you laid out around the movable commercial parklet model. as i said before, right now is structured, everyone's going to do the full commercial parklet, everyone's going to do the most

control. so i think that remains park let is not a viable model and what would it take a few other thoughts and again, i'm just really going to refrain and ask for comments and go a long time and i think we'll be back meet between hearings on these things. i just want to lay out some of the things that i will be looking to talk with the propotentials about in the up coming weeks. i think that i'd really like a better sense of how the program prioritizes equity and i think there's apart of the equity

analysis that relates to public access versus nonpublic which is looking at the demographics of who the patrons are at, you know, an outdoor eating establishment, versus the general public. so, again, i think it relates to the question of how available are these spaces to the public and i think part of the equity analysis has to look at who gets to use the spaces and, i would suspect there's quite a difference if you have it for public use or anyone can grab a sandwich or chess board or whatever instead of a table and use it versus folks who can -- it depends on the establishment, but some places are certainly more limited to folks who can sort of pay the entry fee. the issues around a.d.a.s that

have been raised, clearly, there needs to be more consultation with senior disability action and one of the presentations, the full presentation that struck me is that the current program i believe 29% of the pending a.d.a. complaints remain open, but not resolved. that was a staff that concerned me and i do understand some of it is just a scramble to get this going. get this going and permit them, but i think the ada issues are real and i would like to know more about why almost a third of the a.d.a. complaints remains open. on the fee issues, i'm interested in a better understanding of what the

processes for setting and adjusting the fees initially and going forward. who will have the power to set those fees. i think this is not about only money and relief for small businesses, but it's also as i mentioned earlier about what model of parklet or shared space we are incentiveizing through our structure. i think there are some issues around how this interacts with our transit first policy that i think there's been some thinking about in particular the future of shared spaces in bus stops which we've allowed to some extent in the pandemic. but, obviously, going forward, that's problematic. but also and same with street closures on some of the buses in our district. but when the 21 haze comes back, we've got some big issues on whether that is able to

coexist with that shared space or will need to be moved so i think that needs to be part of our analysis here. as well as looking at transit and bike lanes and whether we are effectively moving some of those off of commercial corridors in order to make room for this or not. some of the issues that were raised around neighborhood i will not repeat. making sure tenants in surrounding buildings, not just the property owners have a say. it's one that i think is important as well as looking at the seven-daytimeline. i'm all for expediting this. seven days is a very short window to do.

i think there's some serious issues around ongoing inspections, how often those will occur. there's some serious issues around the temporary sites and shared spaces sites and i think we have a lot of work to do to build confidence frankly in the safety and have seen some examples with complaints really going weeks and weeks without being addressed. i think really the final point that i'd like some clarity is the final issues that the city for business issues on the temporary program and also just going forward. if someone gets injured in a

parklet or shared space under the permanent program from the current balance of risk there. i hope the committee members and madam chair shares my sentiment of bringing this back to committee and have time to work on it. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam chair. really want to first start by

appreciating most would have to take time from their business schedule to call in today and all the callers that called in today. i think all the calls were extremely important. but i will say that i think often as we do, sometimes in government, we need to get out of our own way. sometimes we need to really do our best to just listen to be impacted the most. have done a good job of when we were responding for instance to the communities that were most impacted by covid. those in the black and brown community, we listened to them extensively as we were crafting our responses to covid. we listened as we talked to folks on the street as we were crafting a program. those particularly on the drivers of the front lines of the muni buses or the front

line grocery store clerks. in this instance, i think we need to do a better job and work our best to listen to the small business owners. they're the ones that truly in my opinion, in so many ways makes san francisco special, makes san francisco the place that people want to visit and it's what makes san francisco unique. so i want to start by saying that. i do want to appreciate a number of shared spaces. there are some that won't be service was decreased. and gradually faded out. so, you know, the idea if there's a long term or

immediate construction work how that impacts the shared space and the public right of way. these are some of the things i talked about with mr. powers. i talked about with mr. ibad over a period of time. so i know there were a number of extents that were made. it might be helpful to see mr. powers is in the queue. maybe he can respond to some of these things. i think it will not have anyone pay for the fees until 2023 if i'm correct. those that can't be adapted will be phased out over time. those in bus stops will be again adjusted and phased out over time. be made aware in the permit itself. i just want to give mr. power the opportunity to jump in and answer some of the questions or respond to some of the things

that were talked about here. are you there? okay. >> i'm here. >> supervisor safai: through the chair if that's okay with you, madam chair. >> chairman: go ahead, mr. powers. >> first of all. thank you, supervisors for hearing this item today. many small businesses in the neighborhood are calling to express their opinion one way or another on this matter. we have been working robin and i and many others for well over six months we would get concrete feedback, concrete recommendations concrete amendments and with the exception of what we just heard today. we don't know what it is that

this board would like us to do. so i think on i would and perhaps this is how the committee is being run today, but we have, you know, robin ibad has answers to many of the questions that you raised. if you would like to hear from him, i think he has solid answers. we walked through those same questions on friday. we have thought a lot about this program, a lot of work has gone in that may not be on the surface and to the extent that you would like to hear answers to your questions and concerns, we have staff here that are very well equipped to provide answers and to have a answer to what we know what you would like us to do. after that, it's difficult for us to make changes to this program. so now we can have a little more of a dialog what you would

like ugh to do. >> chairman: supervisor safai, you still have the floor, did you want to ask specific questions and continue this? and then i see two of my colleagues also have their names in the queue. again. so, go ahead, finish, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: it would be good to hear some answers from mr. ibad some of the ideas or answers you had if it is something that would be conflicting with construction related work in the right of way. how all those things interact and let me just say one last editorial. i just want to say with respect to this work, m.t.a.'s never

had a problem with removing parking spaces. just putting it out there and being honest and straight forward. so let's not make this about we're losing parking spaces. yes, supervisor peskin, we are potentially losing revenue, but there's revenue to be gained in terms of the economy. i know you weren't arguing the opposite. i think you were arguing for just give us a number so we can make a perspective and how it impacts the mta. if mr. ibad can answer those questions and maybe some of the others he heard from supervisor preston. i think it would be good to hear some of those answers on the record today. >> robin, can you answer the questions? >> absolutely. there are quite a number. i think supervisor preston and i think supervisor peskin i

think i got good notes. starting with the questions that supervisor safai had just reiterated. >> madam chair, point of order, my hope was to flag issues to like there's a certain amount of work that has to happen including consultation with other groups i am very specific number of questions on each of those. if we want to go hopefully we can engage on a number of things. >> chairman: and i have a number of questions as well,

supervisor preston. i always as a colleagues let my colleagues go first included our invited supervisors. i did intend for the question to be raised. i didn't necessarily want, you know, to go to the back and forth, but supervisor safai did ask the question. so i wanted to let, you know, the specific question that supervisor safai asked because he is, you know, invited guest in this meeting he has to be apart of. but i don't intend this to be an exhaustive back and forth because i think we have a list of things and we still have more that supervisor safai still has not asked and i haven't asked as well. so i think that all three of the members of this committee have stated that we want to give this a little more time

i'm sorry. this is a question to mr. ibad. >> thank you, chair melgar. so there are many cases in which current existing temporary emergency shared spaces may need to be moved or discontinued. so just absolutely want to reiterate that visibility at our crosswalks, you know, that's a simple and very straight forward requirement that during the pandemic and our quick build to kind of phase has been compromised in some situation. there's different strategies for amealuating that and it's physical extent to create where bus service, transit service is

being reinstated. of course, those transit stops will resume their use as boarding areas that are clear allowing for commuters to get on and off of our public transit. you know, there is also, of course, infrastructure where we do have sewer, water, repaving work projects that wait for no pandemic. and have been in the queue for years and so certainly as those projects move forward, we will be in touch. our implementation crews will be in touch about construction coordination to minimize disruption and impact as we normally would when those projects take place as well as for new inbound applications that come in. it's customary for us to run

all of those locations, you know, against the city's database of capital projects to ensure we're not giving someone a permit to install something on a street that's going to be repaved in a few months. there's a statue i believe it's six months out. so you apply for a permit and the structure is arise within the next six months. that's how we can do it now. with our current program, the provisions of this, we tried to create more options for sponsors to have more flexibility about the kinds of build outs that they install on the streets. the little parklets. one of the reasons we conceived that was to provide an option for folks to pop up even when you might have a capital project coming down your street that precludes you from doing something that's more fixed. so i know supervisors, we

didn't want to get into a back and forth but a lot of the issues that have been raised high level staff have thought very carefully about and we do have solid solutions and answers anticipating those candid solutions everything up and down from requiring why are public noticing who we're seeking notice from, residents as well as ground floor businesses and everything else. so looking forward to providing more specific clarity around those details which, again, they are encoded in this thing, they are embedded in the legislation. he's turned off his camera. >>. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: okay. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, before supervisor safai leaves because we had this

conversation a couple of days ago the impression that there were 2,100 that had blossomed during the pandemic citywide. wasn't that the number that you. >> supervisor peskin: you and i were both under the same impression and when i met with mr. abad and mr. power on friday because that was kind of the number mr. abad, does that sound about right relative to the representations that you made on friday and the representations that you made in writing today? >> yeah. supervisor. i think it depends on what

shared spaces we're talking about. are we talking about all permits when we had our briefing this past friday. as of today, what we have are about 1,632 active curb side not all of those applications over the course of the last ten months have stayed in c2. many of them have discontinued. be installed because of the unfortunate reality that some of our businesses are ending up shuttering. and speaking specifically active curb side spaces as of today, the number that we have

in our agency team is 1, 632. >> supervisor peskin: okay. i super appreciate that. on friday which was about 96 hours ago, it was 1,200, 1,600. and a large factor below and certainly presumably would affect the thinking that mr. egan based his economic analysis on. but putting all of that in the parking lot, the representation that you made to the supervisor on friday was that you were in the middle of ground truthing the actual spaces that needed to go, needed to be modified. that can be permitted on the spot and you told me that finishing that effort would be a few weeks out. can you speak to that further,

through the chair. >> chairman: go ahead. >> yes. absolutely. we are starting our inner agency team. we know from permanent intake data, you know where everyone said they were going to be, how many parking spaces and how many parking meters they were going to take up and so as part of the quality control. we know for example where are people? are they in a red zone or a stop sign. so that work is we want to start that early. one question -- >> supervisor peskin: you already started that and you were a couple weeks done from finishing it is what you told

me on friday. >> the city staff team is in the process of collecting all of that data. so it's going to take us awhile to do it. the project has initiated. >> supervisor peskin: i did not mean to interrupt you, sorry. please proceed. >> part of what's come up early in this call are questions about really what it takes to transfer this huge population to a set of you might say hastily issued permits into ones that are codified. we have to not only verify locations and appropriateness of locations bouncing all of the considerations that monica talked about earlier. the permission of yellow zones, meter and short term parking on the blocks, but then also investigating the state of all of the sites as well. you know, how compliant are they and really getting a sense

of magnitude of how much capital work overall folks really need to undertake and so that is a massive undertaking that will certainly take through the rest of the summer, but in terms of the inventory on corridors that work has. we've already started that because there's no time to lose. even though the shared spaces portfolio dynamics and we're still accepting applications for temporary shared spaces w-we want to go out and collect this data as soon as we can. >> chairman: are you done, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: no i'm not possibly done. i've barely gun. on friday you told me you're going to conclude the survey in

a handful of weeks. now you're telling me it's the end of this summer. which is it? >> the survey. let me check with our staff team on when the location survey will be completed. we talked about a location of feasibility that we have to follow up on. >> chairman: supervisor, please finish. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, no i'm not finished. >> chairman: i'm asking you to let mr. abad finish because he was answering your question. >> supervisor peskin: okay. go ahead. >> i'm done supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: i thought he was done. look. what i really think and let me go back to what i said earlier. i want truth in advertising i want to make a permanent

program. i want to tell people who are going to have to spend massive amounts of more money that we're going to have to spend it as we're going to over time stop turning a blind eye that we're going to have to yank him out what i was told is that you would have a sense of that in the next few weeks. >> with regard to the location, we will have a better sense of that with regard to the physical state. that's a much larger project for interagency enforcement and staff. and that's one of the reasons, that's one of the drivers for having these codified provisions in place as soon as

possible. the sooner that we can be articulate and supervisor preston had alluded to this earlier, the sooner we can have these codified regulations and provisions in place. you know, we can point to something very clearly that says your site needs to comply with these specific provisions and here's how long you have to do it. and so the legislation is currently written says that folks will have until the end of the calendar year. in that intervening period, there is a ton of work for monica and i to do with our teams. to do and on that site provision, work has to happen for folks to be informed and equipped with the knowledge to be compliant. you know.

>> supervisor peskin: are you done? >> yes, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: i've got the legislation before me. what is the december 31st date? can you -- 75 pages of legislation. but can you direct this committee to where that six-month period is, please? >> absolutely. so if you direct your attention to administrative code 94a, i believe it's section either 10 or 11 and let me just pull up -- >> supervisor peskin: wait just a hot second here and that would be version 3, right? >> correct. that would be version 3 that would be used on 5.4. >> supervisor peskin: that would be i'm pretty sure, okay. you've got a page number, my friend? >> i'm scrolling through right

now. 94a 11, page 45. >> supervisor peskin: i'm getting there. >> i've got that scroll wheel. >> supervisor peskin: okay. 94a, 11. summital. i'm now on page 46. >> let me see. >> supervisor peskin: i can read it out loud. >> supervisor, if you -- >> supervisor peskin: suba,

sub 1. >> if you scroll to the top of page 48. >> chairman: supervisor, you know, it's 7:00. i don't want to take up a lot of time scrolling through the language. if there's a question that we can answer while we continue the meeting -- >> supervisor peskin: okay. i see the integration section that 9411 expired by operation of law on january 1st of 2023. is that what you're referring to? i don't see december 31st in 2021. that's what you're saying, but i don't see it. >> you are correct, supervisor.

what we -- i had a lapse in remembering where this provision is. it's currently in our sort of draft regulations where the date that we are giving everyone to comply with their permits. so -- >> supervisor peskin: mr. abad, you just got me and then i will relinquish the floor to what i think is the right thing to do because legislation all 75 pages of it actually sets forth all of these because the number of the department is ranging from s.f.m.t.a. to you name it who can prom ill gate their own relations. i would respectfully suggest to the chair and to my other eight colleagues who are not on this panel that you promolgate those things now and dump those in

this legislation because you're making representations that actually don't exist, but they may exist that's not the way this supervisor wants to dispose of this matter. i think we have time and i want to drill down in that as my last question. do you think that on june 30th all of these parklets are going to cease to exist. do you believe that to be true? >> no, in fact our staff teams are extending shared spaces through the end of the year along the transition timeline that i have narrated earlier while cod if i indication is

enacted so there's overlap to get people from the temporary version of their permit that can't happen overnight over one day. what our team has put together is a transition plan that again spans the time that legislation is enacted say this summer for the next six months over through december. that gives us time to grant funds. that gives us time to do the public education and marketing that i had talked about so that folks can get off of a temporary permit that expires on december thirty-onest and on to a codified one that should be available the provision should be available this summer. >> supervisor peskin: by the way, i am pro foundly confident that we are going to land this plane smoothly and correctly.

i am profoundly confident that you and your colleagues and a number of departments are going to ground truth this and i am confident that in the interim, we're going to charge none of these organizations that are recovering from a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, a single penny. not your $6,000 we're going to charge them absolutely nothing. that is one supervisor's opinion. i mean it sincerely. you guys have put a ton of thought and work into this and you've come to the legislative branch we've got to deal with those that nobody in a wheelchair. the a.d.a. came for a reason.

it was part of the movement and justice and we've got to get it right we've got to figure out the money part of it. right now we're going to subsidize this and we're going to figure out which ones are creating dangerous situations at corners. let's figure that out what regulations are going to be promlgated by dpw and the sfmta. before this board passed a piece of legislation which is provoking. let's get it right. and there's no imminent threat of danger or displacement or relocation. this is a creation of this government during a pandemic that built on something that mr. power brilliantly thought

of when he was a planner in the city department planner thank you for your indull audience. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor peskin. i have a things to add to the list and a couple comments as well. first, i want to start by saying thank you and to mr. power for the heroic effort for getting this up and running. i know we have a local writer that i'm a very big fan of rebecca fillman who wrote a book about how during times of disasters, communities come together and do extraordinary things and i think that's what you guys have done and, you know, while at the beginning, you know, some of these things

are kind of hazardous i want to keep it going, i want to this to help our city, not just survive, but thrive in a way that we have known it to be able to do. so the first thing that i think we heard loud and clear was from the senior disability i think supervisor peskin, we're almost there in terms of taking 12 months.

i want to remind my colleagues that one of the things that i have done in my career with the supervisored technical assistance and there's a good reason why we want to not take twelve months and that is about financing. the other thing we've heard during public comment is that people are, you know, $400,000, $500,000 in debt, business debt on their businesses. and, to be able to carry that kind of debt, you know, financially, you do need a certain level of certainty and, do i wish we had a public bank? do i wish we had some other way to support this kind of debt in our small businesses, yes, i do, right now, what we have is the commercial banking industry and a little bit of the city, but until we solve that issue, we need to be able to support businesses by allowing them to have access to capital to keep

their businesses open and in order to do that, they need to have a level of certainty sooner rather than later. i don't think it's okay to say for the next 12 months you're okay and after that, you're not because the $500,000 debt can take 10, 15 years to pay off if you advertise it. how neighbors can weigh in on this. it's not that i'm asking that neighbors can aprof or disapprove. but i do want to see some rules based on these things have been wonderful. they have allowed our businesses to stay open and

they've made our commercial corridors more vibrant, but they have also bothered the neighbors who live there, you know, when they're open past 10:30 and there's noise and the kids can get to bed or there's trucks double parked because we have been thought through about the loading and unloading in residential slash commercial areas and so i do ask that you put a little bit more work into that because i just like most of us who hear from constituents have heard this over and over again. so i want to be able to address it. and, you know, i think that is it for me. i actually read through the stuff that you have put out and have been communicating with mr. abad this whole time and i am really grateful. i do hope that we can eventually get there, you know, to home base on this one, but i

do think it needs a little bit more time. so, colleagues, is anybody ready to make a motion? >> sure. i move to continue. i don't know what the preference of the chair is whether you would continue to call the chair or i believe our next meetings in two weeks so i'd be happy to continue it to that meeting. >> i think if we continue to the call of the chair, we have to notice it again. so i think that i would rather continue it until june 7th and then if we need to continue but that is what senior disability actions and specifically. >> yeah. and, if i can just clarify does that, i'm happy to make a

motion to and we've got a number of communications like senior disability acts. >> chairman: mr. abad has said he has answers to all of these questions. >> sorry. was that an invitation to speak or to respond. >> chairman: yeah. respond to supervisor peskin. >> no. absolutely. i think two weeks is sensible. it does align with certain groups from what we've heard. we're already in communication

and contact with sta. i think we can come back on the 7th on having work with them and others on some of the other issues. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> i really think the ground truthing is where the rubber hits the road. >> chairman: was that a question in. >> supervisor peskin: no. they actually had an idea of how many can be modified or removed which earlier in today's testimony was several months. >> we will have a better sense of that, supervisor, in a few weeks how comprehensive or deep

that is. certainly by the 7th, if we come back to committee, we can report more on the status of that. and have a firmer sense of timeline which is something that we've been, ourselves trying to nail down as a staff team. >> chairman: supervisor peskin, mr. ibad, did say earlier that he estimated that about 10% of these parklets would not be able to become permanent because of one issue or another. you said something like that. but i'm wondering if we hold up the sort of certainty for the rest of these parklets because we don't have all of the data. do we think that that's the right thing to do? >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, mr. abad respectfully

gave this super and supervisor safai the impression that there were 2,100 of them. on friday, he thought there were 1,200, and today, monday, he thought there were 1,600. i would think respectfully they have nailed down. so i don't think they actually know what's going on on the ground and i think the decisions that we've made and the regulations that are prom gated that were probably put in the ordinance by the head of the interim director of dpw and the head of the sfmta actually are going to make this matter more predictable and more stable to the people who we're trying to maintain. and in the interim, they can amoretize their expenses. we will charge them no money

and we will figure this out and get it right. but i don't think mr. abad who has moved his numbers around in huge factors. 1600, 2100, respectfully knows what he's talking about, i would suggest we continue this here and get real verifiable data and make our decisions based on that and regulations that are proml gated. that is my suggestion. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor. i would like to continue it until the 7th and that would be a challenge to the staff to get some of these answers by the 7th and knowing full well how you feel about it, supervisor peskin, is that in two weeks, if we don't have that data, you will feel the same way and probably even more strongly. ms. munowich, i see that your

hand is up. did you have an answer to the question that supervisor peskin asked? >> i do somewhat if i can have the opportunity to quickly respond, chair melgar. speaking from the work we do. i just want to speak a little bit more that robin was alluded to was just i'm not sure with the couple weeks or a couple months we'll be able to pull information from our sales force database about permits and permits that may be affected by daylighting in particular, but the survey work is going to be months that we've been in participation and it will be like you're alluding to supervisor peskin a really important way for us to make the decisions about so it's not

something to be rushed. every single block doing the data collection, doing the analysis and so i just want to manage the expectations about the city team that's working on like robin said a moment ago, we have methodology in place. we are waiting to get started on it until we had a more concrete sort of state of conditions. ideally, we may have waited until we had a certainty with the permanent program permit holders would be before doing that analysis. so that analysis is being done on what's on the ground today would start in short order this summer and would be a crisis undertaking, but a very good investment in time. that's what i wanted to clarify. thank you. >> chair melgar: thank you, ms. munowich.

supervisor peskin, should i make a motion. >> supervisor peskin: i will go ahead. let me just one last thought just so we can hopefully be moving forward. when we go through the long list of issues, i know there's a number that i'm sure you can in a few minutes you know, off line and there are others where i feel pretty confident where we'll be able to get there. but i do just want to end where i started in this hearing because i don't know what the pass through is and i just want to elevate on this issue of public access and i will say that the briefing last week, what's helpful, but not on this issue because i was raising basically the answer to why we were going to a model of mostly fully privateized parklets instead of public access parklets was sort of that was the directive from the mayor and that's what the small

business community wants. and i just want to say for speaking just for myself and no other supervisors, that's not enough. like if there's a case to be made and i'm not saying it needs to be made. if there's a case to be made for moving the model all of them. i haven't heard that i'm probably the only supervisor for someone to correct me if i'm wrong i'm about the only supervisor of course, and who would blame the business owners. about that issue and i feel like that's a major policy

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

>> clerk: item number four is an ordinance amending the planning, business, and tax regulations and police code for procedures and allow flexibility for neighborhood cultural and entertainment establishments. members of the public who wish to provide public comment please call the number on the screen. (415) 655-0001. press star 3 once to get in the queue. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you, madam clerk. we have laurel from the mayor's office of economic and workforce development here to make a presentation. we also have representatives from the mayor's office, the office of small business and the planning department on stand by for questions. will you please proceed with

your presentation. >> i know this is a long meeting today so i really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important piece of legislation with you all. i'm going to begin with a quick overview of how we got here and then i will dive into each aspect of what this ordinance is endeavoring to do. first, framing, we all agree that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. they make up nine out of ten of our businesses and generate tens and billions of dollars in economic activity. we all nose these businesses were facing challenges before the pandemic. the challenges brought on by online shopping and need to adapt and create experiences. from restaurants about the challenges brought on by delivery apps and ghost

kitchens. and we were about the endless delays for small business owners trying to do something as simple as open an ice cream shop. would be managing various stages. we saw sales tax decrease more in san francisco than anywhere else in the state and despite seeing residents, our sales taxes are still down 30% what we were seeing pre-covid. we saw a 61% drop in tourism. 128,000 jobs were lost and only about half of our small businesses re-opened. suddenly, we were doing all of our shopping online. to go into delivery was the only way for businesses to operate. and when businesses were able to operate, the financial

burden of operation. because of the shift to work from home. our reliance on international tourism. the city has done a tremendous job of trying to fill the gaps. we have allocated $52.8 million in grants and loans and have already gotten $24 million of those into 1,370 business owners' hands and we have sent more than $19 billion to support our workers. the right to recover program. the commercial eviction moratorium and we've waived deferred fees. none of this is enough. we must address the bureaucratic system so that more entrepreneurs can take

that leap sxl open their businesses in san francisco. in anticipating these severe economic impacts during the pandemic, the economic impact reform was formed. supervisor peskin and preston and mandelman to identify tangible steps. the task force's report made four religiouses specifically related to neighborhood businesses. these recommendations paired with strong message we received from voters with a 61% passage of proposition h is the ordinance before you today. this ordinance is built around these three organizing principles. first it aims to cut. second, it works to enhance flexibility allowing neighborhood businesses to adapt both for their short-term recover and long-term viability and third, it creates

protections and opportunities for arts, by simplifying the process between neighborhood businesses and local talents. performances and art spaces were some of the first and continue to see restrictions as we move beyond the blueprint. so now, let's stick to noo the details. this ordinance permanent uses within 30 days citywide. we know that covid has impacted businesses across the city not just in our neighborhood corridors. the agency construction permit like planning, d.b.i., d.b.h., the entertainment of public works has built the administration system needed for this review. this ordinance will expand the benefit. reduce of time and cost for applicants and provide the valuable certainty. it also benefits the city by reducing staff time. to make it possible to process

permits in 30 days, the ordinance will expand the removal of neighborhood notifications. this will save businesses six to eight weeks to open their doors. not all uses are permitted and there is value in seeking public comment input on these issues. however, there's also need to create more certainty for business owners and neighbors alike. to do this, the proposal will expand the access to include bars and retailers with 11 to 21 locations worldwide. this expedited processing provides businesses with a certainty of a 90 day use timeline. the inclusion of small formula retailer. our research suggests that more than 90% of formula retailers

outside of the small retail category and i want to be clear where formula retail is not permitted, it remains not permitted. we can all think of a use in our neighborhood that has been a persistent vacancy. perhaps a beloved old bar or movie theater. efforts to find that after three years spaces abandoned the approval and the conditions that we as neighbors participated in placing on that property before. this claus instituted a number of years ago and was aimed at weeding out uses deemed undesirable. abandonment for nonformula retailers and help neighbors reactivate these eleven neighborhood spaces. removing the abandonment clause and getting occupied more quickly when the new business is the same use as previously approved by abandoned to you. next, look at projects with

matching historic windows or removing nonhistoric features. the historic preservation unanimously recommended removing noticing requirements and permits of minor alterations. there have been three requests for reviews out of a thousand permits reviewed over the past nine years and appeals would still be made to the board of appeals. communities are often highly invested in creating a neighborhood commercial district. neighborhoods have gone through a lengthy process to explore what a healthy balance of business is for their specific neighborhood and developed any number of ways to measure them. one legacy measurement is the concentration based on lynnier analysis within 300' of the business. currently, a restaurant are bar, or fine for additional use authorization is required to do this by walking down the street subtracting garages,

residential driveways. producing these calculations can be costly and comes with substantial margin of error. if the use isn't clear to an applicant, they make mistakes. linear calculations do not represent how we may feel or experience our street scape. if i'm a neighbor concerned about a bar moving into my neighborhood, the linear frontage of my coffee shops doesn't address the concerns. this change will not impact suds nor will it change or form late retail in the upper market street. to support businesses and adapting by providing new abilities of operation. simple seemingly nonimpactful changes. the proposal and places them

within the general resource category. change of use permits for similar uses. so, for example, if i own a t-shirt shop and i want to add screen printing, i would no longer have to go to planning to get a change of use. or, if i was a gym and i wanted to pivot, i could do so without going to the process to get repermitted by the planning department. on the grounds floor, this change will not trigger any changes of per missbility of cat boarding or gyms. it will make trade shops more where cu is currently required. food entrepreneurs have long struggled the lack of availability and many restaurants operate on very low

margins. as opposed to just limited restaurants as it stands today. this expansion will give existing businesses and entrepreneurs more opportunities to share space and operating costs. we don't believe the existence of lying on a shelf in a restaurant should preclude an industry. and this change will offer another path to recovery. outdoor space has been a lifeline for neighborhood businesses during the pandemic and will continue to be through the recovery. many customers will continue to feel safer in outdoor settings. as a result, this ordinance proposes that we principal alley promote roof top uses. this means that the hours of operation would not exceed 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. that the use would not be associated with the bar. when it is associated with a restaurant, it would require that the patrons all be seated and if alcohol is served, it would need to happen in

service. uses would be further limited by the provisions in the upper stories and finally, any roof top operations would be subject to all of the relevant health and safety requirements that currently exist. next, the ordinance will allow accessory dwelling unitings to be allowed in ground spaces to a minimum of 25' of depths. the code currently allows a regular unit to take commercial space so long as the ground floor makes the active use permits. under the same provisions as it regularly exists. this provision would only apply to mixed use buildings, but include mixed use and residential and commercial. large persistent vacancies that retail spaces and may give property owners more adaptability while producing more housing units.

we all know the entertainment experience continue to face the most restrictions to operations. unfortunately, we know that the current economic realities would unclear land use authority. as such, this proposal allows for an applicant to provide sufficient evidence that the premise has been in regular operation for 10 years. the decision would be appealable to the board of appeals ensuring continued protections for neighbors. we also know that some of these transitions take time. requirement for c.u. to remove

nighttime entertainment use. many of which are irreplaceable or difficult to recreate. the c.u. for removal provides an opportunity to simply pause and discussion the elimination during this time of recovery and is supported by the venue coalition. this ordinance proposes this as a unique intervention and as such this provision would only remain in effect for three years. during covid, we have seen businesses forced to move outside to continue operations. the emergency of the pandemic has allowed the emergency department to influence in the interest of preserving economic activity. as we look towards recovery, there is interest to continuing to allow activity. this provision will give more flexibility to businesses as they recover from the pandemic.

next, we look to address the added burden placed on individual hosting parties at the southeast communities facility. required only of individuals using the southeast facility. the facility has a place of entertainment if the staff i don't ever see these events. to go and pull a $63 permit. community members don't need this extra layer of oversight. the next these permits allow entertainment. by eliminating the requirement for a business to get a permit for the addition of a single

unamplified performer. if i'm a greek restaurant on greek independence date, i would no longer need a permit. the proposal further addresses live performance by allowing applicants to request permission. currently, applicants may only request operations until one thousand p.m. in year one and they must since we allow the applicants to request this later in year one and the commission continues to choose to further to limit the hours. in practice, a request to extend to one thousand one hundred p.m. a year or two later has never been denied. and, finally, as directed by the voters, the proposal creates way to incorporate. this proposal allows the

director to issue a 60 day live limited performance so an applicant is permitted a pop-up from the planning department. director would be required to make sure it satisfies all the permit requirements. but the permit would not require a hearing. this permit the proposal will row move the planning requirement to expose the predetermined conditions of entertainment uses. this will give the planning commission flexibility on what is considered to condition to the land. the planning commission would still have full authority they see fit. but the planning commission imposed conditions that may be

immilktive. allowing the two commissions to work in concert and addressing such and, finally, to support the desires of nonprofit businesses but want to expand arts and activities in the neighborhood which are currently limited to twelve times in a calendar year. the proposal maintains the entertainment's authority to conduct official review and make any determination and neighborhood compatibility. as neighborhoods look to bring visitors back as apart of the recovery, this flexibility will make it possible to create unique events while drawing customers into the community. this measure's designed specifically to reduce the time and cost. and endeavors to provide access to entrepreneurs with less start up capital to begin

businesses in san francisco. we are already seeing strong evidence of this working. which 50% identifying. 35% immigrants and 35% limited or lgbtq. nevertheless, we know there are still challenges to opening a business and this proposal is just one step and that's why we continue to invest in small businesses and the community which is our focus on neighborhoods. we recognize the limits of land use regulation as well as the importance in regulations working in tandem with our programming to support vulnerable communities. we warn with 45 neighborhood organizations and community benefit districts to ensure we are meeting business owners where they are. we will continue to work with these organizations to support neighborhoods and business supports. prioritizing support that ensures our business community continues to grow with new and diverse entrepreneurs from within our community. this legislation is just one

piece of that comprehensive intervention and support that our small businesses need. we work closely with community on this legislation from pulling many of these ideas from the recommendations generated from the 100 plus of the recovery task force to addressing challenges that have been brought to us by our businesses. so that we can realize wholistic changes. i want to wrap up by clarifying a few items that some have seem confused about. nor does it allow formula retail. this legislation is not changing production and industrial zoning regulations or protections. it is not changing ground floor zoning tables except in one neighborhood where we make trade shows more permissible.

it does not remove sound control and it does maintain due process. this is about providing a level of certainty to small business owners, building owners, and neighbors. this is aimed at the bureaucracy that we put our business through. this is about holding ourselves accountable. the fact of the matter is that only 12% of small businesses think we are supporting them. we must do better and we can do better. this ordinance begins the work to do this. and i'm happy to hear any questions you guys have for us. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. colleagues. thank you so much, laurel for your presentation. do we have any comments or questions. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, chair melgar. can you just elaborate on the

point around formula retail and i appreciate the comment as i understand that this wouldn't allow formula retail where it is banned or eliminate requirement for conditional use where that is required. but i think it does and i just want to make sure i get this right. my understanding is that it creates a new category of 20 or fewer locations and then those, i think the two things that that impacts for those small formula retail is they have access to the 90 day expedited and then i believe they're also

relieved of the application they're believed to do their concentration calculation and analysis when they're seeking conditional use. do i have all that right? >> you do. we are relieving all formula retail concentration, the linear concentration except for in the upper market m.c.. they have a trigger at a certain percentage that changes the recommendation from planning from yes to know and so we retained that piece of the community that the community had written in, but we again don't. we are removing the calculation, and then, yes, they would have access to the 90 daytimeline to get the commission if they had fewer than 20 establishments worldwide. >> supervisor preston: and can you elaborate on the reasoning

what's the thinking behind that? >> the concentration calculation. that's related to we've heard from many that it feels like a less meaningful calculation or the type of formula retails, but the number of square feet of the linear frontage does not feel like a meaningful calculation and neighbors and commission often there are other more meaningful measurements that are less administrativy burdensome on planning staff and applicants. >> supervisor preston: so i'm just trying to understand under this, what's the formula retail business that you can use has to do, if that's not the right analysis, is there a different one that they have to do that gets at the issue of

concentration? >> planning's fast. planning or the planner could ask for any other measurement. often times what people do want to see is a number of other retailers in the area, so it's more of a store front count over a certain space and that's a much easier thing to ascertain and would likely often be requested by staff, but would not be man dated at this legislation. >> supervisor preston: okay. could they have just done a lot of work around formula retail. i do think it's a significant factor on conditional use of just the prevalence of formula retail whether it should be calculated or analyzed in a different way is one thing, but i just want to make sure that it doesn't vanish. it sounds like it's just a request on a case by case basis. if there's a better way to measure that to just substitute that and then have that be required because it's an important part of the analysis

even if it's calculated differently. and then, on the other one that you mentioned, what's the thinking around the 90-daytime expedited process of why we would want to take businesses from 11 to 20 store locations. >> we've heard from some that how can we create different levels and this was our shot at trying to do that saying these smaller retailers may feel less worrisome to community and so by putting them in this expedited lane, they are able to move through, they're often smaller and maybe still don't have the same kind of ability to pay rent for months and

months on end, the way that our conditional use process can drive on and so this was our attempt to try to address that. >> chair melgar: supervisor peskin, do you have any questions or comments? >> madam chair, i need to say some words. i think that as with the last item, i'm inclined to wait until after public comment. >> chair melgar: okay. sounds good. madam clerk, can we go to public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. d.t.a.'s checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please wait to indicate that you system indicates you have been

unmuted. it looks like we have twenty-eight listeners with twelve in queue. jim, if you can unmute the first caller, please. 15 in queue. if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> hello, supervisors. david woo. we are part of the race and equity and all planning coalition. this sweeping ordinance does not put equity first in its approach to helping our small businesses and the south of market recover. there must be more robust community engagement led by the principal of an equitable recovery that have suffered and continue to suffer from this pandemic. while there are some cases of this ordinance, it could be beneficial. other aspects work to deregulate and remove community protections in the name of

recovery. we must make sure that the harmful aspects of this do not move forward thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. next speaker please. >> hi, this is ben blieman. tonight, i'm speaking as a civilian. we all know for years small businesses have been suffocating by the small business application. and how we can help them thrive in the city. i just want to point out how revolution they're this will be for bringing back art and entertainment in the city. we have created a system where having people perform music

makes no sense to the point where we've suffocated the ability for artists to find paying gigs in the city and for them to employ them. this takes a big chunk out of that and allows common sense changes and for businesses just to make financial sense as well for their own passions and supporting art. so i am speaking up for much in favor of this. there's a few things in there that the think the business community is totally willing to

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

>> good morning, everyone! i get the amazing privilege of being the coronavirus of habitat for humanity greater san francisco and we're so pleased you can join us. we're here in diamond heights to

break ground on a very important project to us. there's not very many community occasions that is exciting as the ground breaking except for the day we give the keys to the family which is coming soon. as we begin, i would love to invite a champion for affordable housing and a good friend to habitat for humanity, pastor teresa chow sigh a few words and to bless us all. pastor chow. [applause] thank you. a house carries very significant importance. it's more than just a shelter, for some it's a sanctuary, place of rest and belonging. for my parents, who emigrated to the u.s. from south korea a house was a dream, however their dream didn't stop at owning a house for themselves, but being able to provide a house for

their children and grandchildren. 20 years ago, when i moved to san francisco, newly married, my parents' dream was realized as they helped my husband and i purchase our first home. and it's why i chose to wear this particular stolz today. this korean fabric means many colors. during very difficult times through out korean history, parents would don their children in these colorful fabrics as a symbol of their hope. they carry the hopes and dreams of the community and i wear this carrying dreams many of us for not just housing but affordable housing. to make this dream come true, it takes the community to put fourth the sweat equity, to push fourth just policies, build a foundation, network the resources and carry the hopes with determination. i love that the homes that will be built here on this land begins with community. city officials, faith leaders,

volunteers, neighbors, homeowners and home dreamers, which truly makes it our house. in the korean angst possess i have pronoun, my is rarely used. we use our. my house is our house, my dream is our dream, my land is our land. however, when we say our house, we also carry the responsibility of not only the hopeful future but the past so that our dreams do not -- are not at the expense of others and that's what it means to be a community. so in the spirit i would like to share this house blessing by poet jan richardson and acknowledging this is on the ancestrial home lapped of the aloney people who are the or not inhabitants. think of the year as a house, door swung wide and welcome, threshold swept and waiting a

grace spaciousness, opening and offering itself to you. let it be blessed in every room, let the it be hollowed in every corner. let every nook in the refuge and every object set to holy youth, let it be here that safety will rest, let it be here that health will make its home, let it be here that peace will show its face and let it be here that love will find its way, here let the weary come and let the aching come, let the lost come and let them find rest and find their soothing and let them find their place. and let them find their delight. and may it be in this house of a year that the seasons will spin in beauty and may it be in these turning days the time will spiral with joy and rooms will fill with ordinary grace and lights spill from every window with welcome to the strangers calling it home.

amen. [applause] >> thank you so much pastor. we appreciate you and your congregation for your friendship and your advocacy on housing and your on going support. i want to welcome our guests here with us today. because of covid we had to limit the crowd. i appreciate all of you who are here with us, and physically and in spirit. i'm delighted to say that mayor breed is with us today. since her inauguration, mayor breed has been a true champion and leader prioritizing affordable housing. under her leadership, the mayor's office of housing and community development has continued and increased their work supporting families and communities across the city. today, san francisco has a robust pipeline of affordable housing and ready to be built and available at all levels for

all family sizes. madam mayor, it's great to see you and we look forward to bringing hundreds more homes that we have in our pipeline in the next several years forward to partner with the city. i also couldn't be happier the district 8 supervisor mandelman is with us today. there are few people who have worked harder more thoughtfully than you have to get more affordable homes built with the needs of each neighborhood. it's good to see you. i'm going to come back to a would be wonderful proposal of yours in a little while. eric shaw is also with us today. thank you for your leadership and your vision and we really appreciate it. we also have with us three san francisco habitat homeowners today. den ice, jenn, and jeanette. if you can all just wave. like all habitat homeowners, denise jenn and janette know their way around a construction

site and experienced home builders. i know they can't wait to welcome new families to these homes and help them on their journey. i'm so pleased to see bryn smith here today, a fantastic volunteer who has worked hundreds of hours both here in san francisco and overseas across the globe. thank you, bryn. you live a stone's throw away and we'll see him working on the homes. representing our amazing dime opened heights neighborhoods, i can see betsy eddie, thank you, co president of the diamond heights community association, and betsy is such a strong supporter of this project. from the moment i first called her to say yes, how can we help and i really appreciate you. last time we were together, just up the hill at the police academy, we had about 70 community members join us to learn about and support the project. i was so impressed that we had almost everyone 68 out of the 70 who said yes we want to see this project happen. something that doesn't get

enough recognition here in our city. our architectses, toby is here and you can see the beautiful rendering behind me and it will turn into a beautiful community for the families that live here. and you can see reflected in the design the compliments of the neighborhood as you look around. several members of our habitat for humanity greater san francisco board are with us today. mark and ken preston and thank you for coming out and if i missed anyone, sorry. we have a board meeting later so i'll hear about it. normally, of course, in pro covid times, we would be able to welcome many more of our hundreds of homeowners and thousands of volunteers to this event. i feel so blessed that we've been able to be here together and gather as many friends. i know we're all excited to be moving forward with this path to a gradual and safe reopening. we're starting the project with a very special story attached to it. on this site, right here, stood

the home of a great san franciscan maria collish. she was one of the first people to move into the diamond heights neighborhood in the '50s when all of this was in open meadow. she was a chemist, activist, medical researcher whose circle of friends included chemist line, artist, and venture and architect fuller and photographer imaging cunningham and if you look over at the plaque, you will see the beautiful image that the shot of her that we memorized on a plaque. she loved her city and had he loved the people who live here. the site was donated by her son and his wife. in her honor and memory they wish to help more hard-working families stay in the city that she cared for. today, mischa at 99-years-old is resting at home and he is looking forward to seeing a video of us all later today.

the flag recognizing his mother will be a fix to the building when finished. the sculpture is based on a photo. this will stand as a reminder to all of the life maria left and her generosity to families in san francisco. so now where there was previously one home, there will be eight homes. three and four bedroom homes for families. this type of urban refill project typically more manageable numbers on units on smaller parcels o of land has potential to contribute to the number of homes that low income people can be homeowners in in san francisco. that's why we're so supportive of sensible proposals such as those by supervisor mandelman to make it a little easier to build smaller size projects and certain locations that are in keeping with the neighborhood character density and transportation availability. just yesterday, the supervisor introduced legislation to make

four-unit buildings easier to build and we support that effort. so what makes a habitat project? well, all of our homes are affordable homeownership. because we know home opioid allows families to realize potential, to build wealth and equity and accomplish their dreams. habitat serves as both the general contractor, the developer and the mortgage lender with a zero down and zero percentage interest loan for families. we cap all families housing costs at 30% of their income and this pro voids predictability, stability, and for the next generation, and for this generation as well. our homeowners invest 500 hours working alongside their neighbors and the community. they will be joined by hundreds of volunteers who live and work in san francisco and who want to make sure families have a chance to stay and plant their roots in the community. these homes are forever affordable as habitat buys them back when families move on it market rate homes or relocate

after their children are grown and the process starts over again with another family. san francisco loves volunteers, pound for pound we have the most generous people in the country right here in san francisco. we've already been inundated with offers from volunteers who are anxious to safely get back to work after the past year of quarantine. this will be supported by habitat pro commercial construction staff and they have kept our construction sites safely and productively across our region. habitat san francisco is building in and to see so much affordable housing gun o in our. and the balboa reservoir projects last year. we're excited and proud to be homeowner developers in these projects. this is being supported by the

mayor's office of housing and community development with $1.5 million in construction and permanent financing. just like so many affordable developments, the mayor will drive them to the finish. i want to acknowledge eric. when he learned that 85% of habitat homeowners were bipoc family in san francisco and we look forward to carrying the legacy forward in awful our projects. and as our reopening process proceeds, we listen to the guidance from local government, we look forward to restarting our critical repair work which has helped so many of our neighbors stay safe and warm in the homes they know and they've been in for a long time, especially in the buy view and san francisco. tur for being here. i'm delighted to introduce you to the woman who needs no introduction, and the leader mayor london broad. breed. [applause] madam mayor, welcome.

>> thank you, i had to put my hair back. it's windy out here. first of all, let me say how excited i am about this project and i am not surprised the community here in diamond heights rallied together to support it. this community is a very active community and i have a history, believe it or not, with the diamond heights community when i worked at treasure island when the city was considering moving the police academy to treasure island. this community fought to keep the police academy right here in this community and they were successful. along with the work and the advocacy around george christopher park and we broke ground on a new playground and in that particular area, a couple weeks ago. and so, this is an amazing community. it's a resilient community. it's a community that has a history that was just talked about. maria polish, one of the first residents here in the 1950s

when it was just a meadow and now look at it. a neighborhood and a community where children are raised and people shop and see each other at the grocery store and we know that this project is going to be an important part of this community too. so, i am excited about it. i'm especially excited because some of you might have remembered when i served on the board of supervisors i introduced neighborhood preference legislation and that legislation made sure that when we build affordable housing in communities, the right of first refusal for the certain percentage of those units goes to the people who actually live here who are qualified for the affordable unit. in order to allow for opportunities for your children or grand children, who may have grown up in this community, to have at least the possibility of getting access to these homes. so in this particular project, neighborhood preference will be used for home ownership. i can't be more thrilled to be

working with habitat for humanity because of the incredible work that they do the hardest part of owning a home is putting together a down payment. and in san francisco, that's at least a minimum of $250,000 in order to own a home that many people sometimes can barely afford. and here, no down payment. no more than 30% of their income used to pay representative. a place that people will call home and be able to raise their families. and if they are so fortunate enough to excel in life and generate more revenue for their household and move on to purchase another property, the home will still be affordable to the next generation. this is an incredible project for our city. and i couldn't be more thrilled. i wanted to say how much i appreciate all of you the voters of san francisco. when i first became mayor, we put on the ballot an affordable housing bond which wow supported overwhelmingly and since i've taken office, we've been able

to, along with that affordable housing and other resources, we're able town vest over a billion dollars in affordable housing in san francisco. that's why it was not a hard sil for us, immediately providing the resources necessary to get the job done for this project so it's your support, your advocacy and everyone coming together and it really does take a village and this village came together to provide incredible opportunities for home ownership for families and i'm looking forward to being here when we cut the ribbon in the first families move in. thank you all so much for being here today. [applause] thank you so much, mayor. now i want to introduce someone well-known to us and well-known further afield for his thoughtful approach to an environment where more affordable homes can be built. i want to welcome rafael mandelman. welcome. >> thank you.

samson bloom. this is a little bit of like a collision of my multiple world's. i want to grad school 20 something years ago with eric and hey eric, and i worked when i was a lawyer in private practice representing local governments on many teams, are you representing kappa chat? you are on the board. awesome. well, good to see you. so, at any rate, everybody, i am so excited about this particular moment. from the moment that i started as a supervisor, i wanted to see more affordable housing built in district 8 and district 8 is a hard district to get affordable housing built in notwithstanding the displacement that has happened from district 8. it's hard because we're built out and we don't have a lot of available sites because land values are high. from our very first meeting with

mayor breed, i've been asking her for help with affordable housing in district 8 and she's been delivering it. she acquired a big giant property on market street that is going to house lgbtq queer seniors and friends. this particular project is really exciting and required moe and eric to do outside the box thinking about how to use the funds. in district 8, projects small projects like this habitat projects, affordable home projects make a lot of sense on these small sites. but it's been something that most have been funding before and i'm sure partly through the intervention of our mayor and doing things like this and it showed great flexibility around funding this and i have all sorts of people who i should thank. got the mayor and eric shaw and of course habitat for humanity and the tremendous work you do

and you are pushing us to think outside the box about getting this project done. all of the volunteers and of course the neighbors. betsy, deserves praise all the time in every way but it's wonderful to be in a neighborhood that is welcoming affordable housing and wants to see it built here and i'd love to say this was courageous to have this project here but the neighborhood wants it and people have been e-mailing us saying when is it getting done. there's excitement and enthusiasm and of course finally to mischa and his family for making this opportunity availability this is exciting. thank you, everyone. >> thank you so much. so as we get ready to mark the occasion with some photos. we're going to put some shovels in the ground. i want to thank everyone for being here and lending your

support. thank you mayor breed, you are well served by your staff and they were amazing to work with and thank you supervisor mandelman and your team, also amazing and thank you to our neighbors here in beautiful diamond heights we can't wait to see you out on the construction site in the spring and be ready to start with our volunteers, right, err on, and all our communities of homeowners, volunteers, board members, staff, donors, thank you, thank you, thank you. and a most special thank you to my friends, and our generous donor mischa and the vision and donation of this hand in honor of maria, began journey and brought us here where today. thank you all. thank you very much and we appreciate you joining us. we're going to move over to some photos. 3, 2, 1, turn that dirt! >> we're in business! women's n

sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative

effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street

it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden

it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers. >> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org

>> good morning, everyone! i get the amazing privilege of being the coronavirus of habitat for humanity greater san francisco and we're so pleased you can join us. we're here in diamond heights to break ground on a very important project to us. there's not very many community occasions that is exciting as the ground breaking except for the day we give the keys to the family which is coming soon. as we begin, i would love to invite a champion for affordable housing and a good friend to habitat for humanity, pastor teresa chow sigh a few words and to bless us all. pastor chow. [applause] thank you.

a house carries very significant importance. it's more than just a shelter, for some it's a sanctuary, place of rest and belonging. for my parents, who emigrated to the u.s. from south korea a house was a dream, however their dream didn't stop at owning a house for themselves, but being able to provide a house for their children and grandchildren. 20 years ago, when i moved to san francisco, newly married, my parents' dream was realized as they helped my husband and i purchase our first home. and it's why i chose to wear this particular stolz today. this korean fabric means many colors. during very difficult times through out korean history, parents would don their children in these colorful fabrics as a symbol of their hope. they carry the hopes and dreams of the community and i wear this carrying dreams many of us for

not just housing but affordable housing. to make this dream come true, it takes the community to put fourth the sweat equity, to push fourth just policies, build a foundation, network the resources and carry the hopes with determination. i love that the homes that will be built here on this land begins with community. city officials, faith leaders, volunteers, neighbors, homeowners and home dreamers, which truly makes it our house. in the korean angst possess i have pronoun, my is rarely used. we use our. my house is our house, my dream is our dream, my land is our land. however, when we say our house, we also carry the responsibility of not only the hopeful future but the past so that our dreams do not -- are not at the expense of others and that's what it means to be a community. so in the spirit i would like to

share this house blessing by poet jan richardson and acknowledging this is on the ancestrial home lapped of the aloney people who are the or not inhabitants. think of the year as a house, door swung wide and welcome, threshold swept and waiting a grace spaciousness, opening and offering itself to you. let it be blessed in every room, let the it be hollowed in every corner. let every nook in the refuge and every object set to holy youth, let it be here that safety will rest, let it be here that health will make its home, let it be here that peace will show its face and let it be here that love will find its way, here let the weary come and let the aching come, let the lost come and let them find rest and find their soothing and let them find their place. and let them find their delight.

and may it be in this house of a year that the seasons will spin in beauty and may it be in these turning days the time will spiral with joy and rooms will fill with ordinary grace and lights spill from every window with welcome to the strangers calling it home. amen. [applause] >> thank you so much pastor. we appreciate you and your congregation for your friendship and your advocacy on housing and your on going support. i want to welcome our guests here with us today. because of covid we had to limit the crowd. i appreciate all of you who are here with us, and physically and in spirit. i'm delighted to say that mayor breed is with us today. since her inauguration, mayor breed has been a true champion and leader prioritizing

affordable housing. under her leadership, the mayor's office of housing and community development has continued and increased their work supporting families and communities across the city. today, san francisco has a robust pipeline of affordable housing and ready to be built and available at all levels for all family sizes. madam mayor, it's great to see you and we look forward to bringing hundreds more homes that we have in our pipeline in the next several years forward to partner with the city. i also couldn't be happier the district 8 supervisor mandelman is with us today. there are few people who have worked harder more thoughtfully than you have to get more affordable homes built with the needs of each neighborhood. it's good to see you. i'm going to come back to a would be wonderful proposal of yours in a little while. eric shaw is also with us today.

thank you for your leadership and your vision and we really appreciate it. we also have with us three san francisco habitat homeowners today. den ice, jenn, and jeanette. if you can all just wave. like all habitat homeowners, denise jenn and janette know their way around a construction site and experienced home builders. i know they can't wait to welcome new families to these homes and help them on their journey. i'm so pleased to see bryn smith here today, a fantastic volunteer who has worked hundreds of hours both here in san francisco and overseas across the globe. thank you, bryn. you live a stone's throw away and we'll see him working on the homes. representing our amazing dime opened heights neighborhoods, i can see betsy eddie, thank you, co president of the diamond heights community association, and betsy is such a strong

supporter of this project. from the moment i first called her to say yes, how can we help and i really appreciate you. last time we were together, just up the hill at the police academy, we had about 70 community members join us to learn about and support the project. i was so impressed that we had almost everyone 68 out of the 70 who said yes we want to see this project happen. something that doesn't get enough recognition here in our city. our architectses, toby is here and you can see the beautiful rendering behind me and it will turn into a beautiful community for the families that live here. and you can see reflected in the design the compliments of the neighborhood as you look around. several members of our habitat for humanity greater san francisco board are with us today. mark and ken preston and thank you for coming out and if i missed anyone, sorry. we have a board meeting later so i'll hear about it. normally, of course, in pro

covid times, we would be able to welcome many more of our hundreds of homeowners and thousands of volunteers to this event. i feel so blessed that we've been able to be here together and gather as many friends. i know we're all excited to be moving forward with this path to a gradual and safe reopening. we're starting the project with a very special story attached to it. on this site, right here, stood the home of a great san franciscan maria collish. she was one of the first people to move into the diamond heights neighborhood in the '50s when all of this was in open meadow. she was a chemist, activist, medical researcher whose circle of friends included chemist line, artist, and venture and architect fuller and photographer imaging cunningham and if you look over at the plaque, you will see the beautiful image that the shot of her that we memorized on a plaque. she loved her city and had he loved the people who live here.

the site was donated by her son and his wife. in her honor and memory they wish to help more hard-working families stay in the city that she cared for. today, mischa at 99-years-old is resting at home and he is looking forward to seeing a video of us all later today. the flag recognizing his mother will be a fix to the building when finished. the sculpture is based on a photo. this will stand as a reminder to all of the life maria left and her generosity to families in san francisco. so now where there was previously one home, there will be eight homes. three and four bedroom homes for families. this type of urban refill project typically more manageable numbers on units on smaller parcels o of land has potential to contribute to the

number of homes that low income people can be homeowners in in san francisco. that's why we're so supportive of sensible proposals such as those by supervisor mandelman to make it a little easier to build smaller size projects and certain locations that are in keeping with the neighborhood character density and transportation availability. just yesterday, the supervisor introduced legislation to make four-unit buildings easier to build and we support that effort. so what makes a habitat project? well, all of our homes are affordable homeownership. because we know home opioid allows families to realize potential, to build wealth and equity and accomplish their dreams. habitat serves as both the general contractor, the developer and the mortgage lender with a zero down and zero percentage interest loan for families. we cap all families housing costs at 30% of their income and this pro voids predictability, stability, and for the next generation, and for this

generation as well. our homeowners invest 500 hours working alongside their neighbors and the community. they will be joined by hundreds of volunteers who live and work in san francisco and who want to make sure families have a chance to stay and plant their roots in the community. these homes are forever affordable as habitat buys them back when families move on it market rate homes or relocate after their children are grown and the process starts over again with another family. san francisco loves volunteers, pound for pound we have the most generous people in the country right here in san francisco. we've already been inundated with offers from volunteers who are anxious to safely get back to work after the past year of quarantine. this will be supported by habitat pro commercial construction staff and they have kept our construction sites safely and productively across our region. habitat san francisco is

building in and to see so much affordable housing gun o in our. and the balboa reservoir projects last year. we're excited and proud to be homeowner developers in these projects. this is being supported by the mayor's office of housing and community development with $1.5 million in construction and permanent financing. just like so many affordable developments, the mayor will drive them to the finish. i want to acknowledge eric. when he learned that 85% of habitat homeowners were bipoc family in san francisco and we look forward to carrying the legacy forward in awful our projects. and as our reopening process proceeds, we listen to the guidance from local government, we look forward to restarting our critical repair work which

has helped so many of our neighbors stay safe and warm in the homes they know and they've been in for a long time, especially in the buy view and san francisco. tur for being here. i'm delighted to introduce you to the woman who needs no introduction, and the leader mayor london broad. breed. [applause] madam mayor, welcome. >> thank you, i had to put my hair back. it's windy out here. first of all, let me say how excited i am about this project and i am not surprised the community here in diamond heights rallied together to support it. this community is a very active community and i have a history, believe it or not, with the diamond heights community when i worked at treasure island when the city was considering moving the police academy to treasure island. this community fought to keep the police academy right here in this community and they were successful. along with the work and the

advocacy around george christopher park and we broke ground on a new playground and in that particular area, a couple weeks ago. and so, this is an amazing community. it's a resilient community. it's a community that has a history that was just talked about. maria polish, one of the first residents here in the 1950s when it was just a meadow and now look at it. a neighborhood and a community where children are raised and people shop and see each other at the grocery store and we know that this project is going to be an important part of this community too. so, i am excited about it. i'm especially excited because some of you might have remembered when i served on the board of supervisors i introduced neighborhood preference legislation and that legislation made sure that when we build affordable housing in communities, the right of first refusal for the certain percentage of those units goes to the people who actually live here who are qualified for the

affordable unit. in order to allow for opportunities for your children or grand children, who may have grown up in this community, to have at least the possibility of getting access to these homes. so in this particular project, neighborhood preference will be used for home ownership. i can't be more thrilled to be working with habitat for humanity because of the incredible work that they do the hardest part of owning a home is putting together a down payment. and in san francisco, that's at least a minimum of $250,000 in order to own a home that many people sometimes can barely afford. and here, no down payment. no more than 30% of their income used to pay representative. a place that people will call home and be able to raise their families. and if they are so fortunate enough to excel in life and generate more revenue for their household and move on to purchase another property, the

home will still be affordable to the next generation. this is an incredible project for our city. and i couldn't be more thrilled. i wanted to say how much i appreciate all of you the voters of san francisco. when i first became mayor, we put on the ballot an affordable housing bond which wow supported overwhelmingly and since i've taken office, we've been able to, along with that affordable housing and other resources, we're able town vest over a billion dollars in affordable housing in san francisco. that's why it was not a hard sil for us, immediately providing the resources necessary to get the job done for this project so it's your support, your advocacy and everyone coming together and it really does take a village and this village came together to provide incredible opportunities for home ownership for families and i'm looking forward to being here when we cut the ribbon in the first families move in. thank you all so much for being here today.

[applause] thank you so much, mayor. now i want to introduce someone well-known to us and well-known further afield for his thoughtful approach to an environment where more affordable homes can be built. i want to welcome rafael mandelman. welcome. >> thank you. samson bloom. this is a little bit of like a collision of my multiple world's. i want to grad school 20 something years ago with eric and hey eric, and i worked when i was a lawyer in private practice representing local governments on many teams, are you representing kappa chat? you are on the board. awesome. well, good to see you. so, at any rate, everybody, i am so excited about this particular moment. from the moment that i started as a supervisor, i wanted to see

more affordable housing built in district 8 and district 8 is a hard district to get affordable housing built in notwithstanding the displacement that has happened from district 8. it's hard because we're built out and we don't have a lot of available sites because land values are high. from our very first meeting with mayor breed, i've been asking her for help with affordable housing in district 8 and she's been delivering it. she acquired a big giant property on market street that is going to house lgbtq queer seniors and friends. this particular project is really exciting and required moe and eric to do outside the box thinking about how to use the funds. in district 8, projects small projects like this habitat projects, affordable home projects make a lot of sense on these small sites. but it's been something that

most have been funding before and i'm sure partly through the intervention of our mayor and doing things like this and it showed great flexibility around funding this and i have all sorts of people who i should thank. got the mayor and eric shaw and of course habitat for humanity and the tremendous work you do and you are pushing us to think outside the box about getting this project done. all of the volunteers and of course the neighbors. betsy, deserves praise all the time in every way but it's wonderful to be in a neighborhood that is welcoming affordable housing and wants to see it built here and i'd love to say this was courageous to have this project here but the neighborhood wants it and people have been e-mailing us saying when is it getting done. there's excitement and enthusiasm and of course finally

to mischa and his family for making this opportunity availability this is exciting. thank you, everyone. >> thank you so much. so as we get ready to mark the occasion with some photos. we're going to put some shovels in the ground. i want to thank everyone for being here and lending your support. thank you mayor breed, you are well served by your staff and they were amazing to work with and thank you supervisor mandelman and your team, also amazing and thank you to our neighbors here in beautiful diamond heights we can't wait to see you out on the construction site in the spring and be ready to start with our volunteers, right, err on, and all our communities of homeowners, volunteers, board members, staff, donors, thank you, thank you, thank you. and a most special thank you to my friends, and our generous donor mischa and the vision and donation of this hand in honor of maria, began journey and

brought us here where today. thank you all. thank you very much and we appreciate you joining us. we're going to move over to some photos. 3, 2, 1, turn that dirt! >> we're in business!

>> by calling (415) 655-0001. again, it's (415) 655-0001.

best practice is to turn down your tv or radio. you may submit public comment to myself. s as in sam. omera madam chair, that concludes my announcements. >> chairman: and i understand we do not have vice chair cynthia pollock with us and that we should make a motion to excuse her. >> clerk: we do need a first

and a second may i have a second. >> commissioner: second. >> chairman: i hear a second by commissioner mar. >> clerk: on the motion to excuse vice chair cruz-pollock from today's meeting, [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chairman: thank you. and, do we also need to do a roll call i will stay for the roll call. we have chairperson chan, commissioner mar, and commissioner singh present today. >> chairman: great. i appreciate that and, with

that, madam clerk please call item number 2. >> clerk: item number 2 is approval of the lafco meeting. members of the public who wish to call for public comment should call the public comment number. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and then you may begin your comments. madam chair. colleagues, do you have any colleagues on this item which is approval of our minutes from

april 16th do we have anybody in line to speak for this matter. >> we have one person in queue. >> clerk: thank you. thank you, caller, please proceed. hi, commissioners. eric brooks. i wanted to alert the sfg tv folks that at least on my computer and browsers, the sfgov tv 2 program schedule thanks. >> sfgov, i see maybe you guys can look into it and report back. madam chair.

>> right. a motion to approve the regular meeting. i think for all the presentation items 3, 4, and 5, given the fact that we are limited with time in quorum. we want to make sure item

number three and four and five. please go ahead for item number three. >> hi good morning i don't have a power the first is i'm asking for your support for this is a

non controversial legislation that would make technical nonsubstantiative changes to the court tv government act which governs all lafcos in california. the executive director of cal lafco says that the changes are necessary. and small inconsistencies are found or clarifications needed to make the law. so i've included in your packets, a letter of support, and as i said, this is a noncontroversial legislation. it wouldn't directly affect san francisco lafco, but in the spirit of supporting other lafcos, we have been asked to provide and i am submitting a letter of support. and i apologize i did not put a clear letter of recommendation on this.

it does require a second vote. the second question is an update on our renewable energy consultant. as you know, jenny woodson who was the lead as our renewable consultant, announced recently she was leaving and she has since departed. so over the course of the last month, vanner has assessed its staffing situation. in the beginning we thought that rose marie amphill has done a lot of the writing and reports for lafco. have had a chance to assess staffing resources and has informed me that they do not wish to extend their current contracts when it expires on

july 20th won't be continuing. they left a great. [please stand by] -- for me to catch up with the work that they have done. i want to do -- from your report i want to make a motion to

support -- to send -- to support ab-1581, is that the correct number? >> that's right, madam chair. >> chair chan: so i want to make the motion to draft a letter of support and to send a letter of support for ab-1581, do i have a second on the floor? >> second. >> chair chan: thank you so much, commissioner singh. madam clerk, can we have a roll call on this motion? >> clerk: madam chair, we need to take public comment before we do that. >> chair chan: got it. >> clerk: so the members of the public to provide public comment, press star 3, to be added to the queue. for those who have done so, wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. mr. smith, do we have anyone in line for this matter? >> we have one person of two.

>> clerk: thank you. go ahead, caller. >> caller: good morning, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and the local grassroots of our city, san francisco. i wanted to first of all clarify that the public will still have -- the three minutes each to speak, and then i wanted to note that in july that perhaps it might be a good use of those funds to direct them and to get a request to the board of supervisors for a draft of local build out plan that we'll discuss in more detail. hopefully in item 4. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. do we have the next caller,

please. >> caller: thank you, chair and commissioners. (indiscernible) and a resident of san francisco district 5 as well. thank you for the presentation. -- and in the next several months that we'll take -- we'll need to take some time to basically to replace both of those positions and -- or both of those roles. so i guess i would ask and suggest that we start trying to backfill or to figure out what we are going to do for consulting, if any, prior to when executive officer is

departing, and we are replacing those roles at the same time. and we were interested in a proactive and positive local buildout plan with workforce development, and disadvantaged communities, more than monitoring sfpuc and watching what they're doing, but i do think that there is probably a role for renewable energy consulting for lafco,. >> clerk: anyone else in the cue? >> that was our last. >> chair chan: public comment is closed.

now,. >> president maxwell: , if you could call the roll for the motion. >> clerk: item 3 to send a support letter for 1581. [roll call] there are three ayes. >> chair chan: great. this was unanimous. so we can move on to item number 4. madam clerk. >> clerk: item 4, the activities report. for members of the public to provide public comment on this item call 1-(415)-655-0001. and meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and you can begin your comments. madam chair.

>> chair chan: thank you, we have sfpuc here, we appreciate you. >> good morning, chair, and good morning lafco members. this is michael heinz, with the clean s.f. program for the public utilities commission. i do have a presentation for you this morning. and so i will bring those slides up. are you able to see the slides? >> i for some reason cannot.

>> no, not yet. okay. try it one more time here. are you able to see that presentation now? >> clerk: yes. >> okay, great. thank you. okay, for the clean power s.f. update today i'll cover our usual update on program enrollment and service statistics. i will also cover customer bill

delinquencies and relief measures, something that we have been speaking about regularly in these meetings. i'll share updates on our clean power s.f. power rates and finally i'll provide an update on the legislation, specifically senate bill 612. the clean power s.f. program provides reliable service to its customers with the enrollment of 409,000 accounts, clean power s.f. has city-wide enrollment of eligible customers. since we started serving customers in may 2017, there's been a 96% retention rate or cumulative opt out rate of 4.1% and in addition, 2.1% of our customers have upgraded to our voluntary super green product that is almost 8,000 residential

and commercial accounts here in san francisco that are receiving 100% renewable energy, and that represents more than 5% of clean power s.f.'s annual retail sales. as we have discussed in previous lafco meetings, the covid-19 pandemic has generated economic hardship across the country and right here in san francisco. and over the past year we have observed an increase in bill payment delinquencies among our clean power s.f. customer base. and in the next few slides i'm going to present the latest data on bill payment delinquencies and the status of relief for our customers. i wanted to start with context. the pie chart here shows san francisco's power supply by the amount of the electricity supplied by different service providers. the city and county of san francisco through its public

utilities commission operate its two electricity services. hetch hetchy power, our power provider, and clean power s.f., our community choice energy program. those two programs are identified as green and blue slices on the pie chart. and as you can see, san francisco's programs now supply more than 70% of the city's retail electricity demand. the other two provider categories, pg&e and the direct access suppliers, together now provide 20% to 25%. the data that i'm going to share with you in the next several slides is focused on clean power s.f. customers. all of the data that i'm going to share in this next few slides is as of the end of april. the map here depicts a percentage of clean power s.f.

residential customers are more than 90 days delinquent by zip code. it represents the number of customers that are delinquent out of the total number of customers in each zip code. in total, there are 16,250 or so residential clean power s.f. customers that are 90 days or more delinquent on their electricity charges. this represents a 3% decrease compared to the data we presented to you at the last lafco meeting. this map depicts the percentage of the commercial accounts that were more than 90 days delinquent on their electricity bill by zip code as of the end of april. there are approximately 1,685 commercial clean power s.f. customers in this category, and

this also represents a slight decrease compared to the data that we presented to you during the last meeting. this map depicts the average past due balance for residential customers for each zip code. this is for all clean power s.f. customers that are delinquent and not just those more than 90 days. the dollar amounts here only represent the amounts that customers owe clean power s.f. as a reminder, since clean power s.f. customers must also pay pg&e for transmission and distribution service, in total they may have an outstanding balance of their electricity service that is two or three times the amount shown here. the data s

and lastly, this map depicts the average amount delinquent by zip code for commercial customers. the data indicates that there has been a $6 increase in the average overdue balance for commercial customers compared to last month, again, to get a sense of the total amount owed, as these charts show you multiple it by two or three times seen here. the p.u.c. and the city have been leading the way in terms of protecting our residents and businesses from utility shutoffs as our community and the world responded to the covid-19 crisis. at the mayor's direction, the sfpuc suspended the utility shutoffs for hetch hetchy water and power customers and suspended the return of clean power s.f. customers to pg&e for

their generation supply due to non-payment back in march 2020. about a month later, the california p.u.c. directed them to suspend the utility disconnections for non-payment as well. that policy is currently scheduled to end at the end of june. on april 27th of this year, the sfpuc extended the temporarier torres yum on shutoffs, liens and fines through march 31st of 2022. the sfpuc commission also directed the general manager to return to the commission with recommended revisions or other actions consistent with the decision that is expected to be issued very soon in the california p.u.c.'s covid-19 debt proceeding. and, of course, last week the board of supervisors adopted the resolution brought forward by commissioner chan, urging

governor newsome and the california public commission to extend past june 30th, 2021, and torgive utility debt beginning -- beginning march 2020. that resolution couldn't have come at a better time as i just indicated that the california p.u.c. is preparing to issue a decision addressing disconnections and covid-19 debt, and that proceeding the sfpuc has advocated for san franciscans through the california community choice association or state-wide c.c.a. association, calling for the sfpuc to, among other things, to align the timing for the end of the disconnection moratorium with the status of the state's economic reopening, and to allow customers a transition period to regain economic stability. to fund the additional debt relief through the public purpose program charge,

collected from all ratepayers for public programs. and to utilize area median income as an eligibility threshold instead of the federal poverty level to allow for increased participation and to expand the payment plans and prioritize the flexibility in payment plans. the board resolution with debt was well timed because the governor just announced his california comeback plan, an initiative to utilize the budget surplus for those with debt relief for those impacted by covid-19. the plan proposes to provide, among other forms of relief, $1 billion for electric and gas utility arrears. as the specific details of the plan are worked out, the sfpuc will advocate that clean power s.f. and other c.c.a. ratepayers

receive a fair portion of the funds. okay, i'm going to transition now to clean power s.f. rates, as we have indicated to the lafco that we are working on a rate proposal to address the recent increases in pg&e power charge or power adjustment or pcia, that's the surcharge that the utility is allowed to collect from customers of community choice energy programs like clean power s.f. it's intended to recover the unavoidable above-market costs of power resources that pg&e committed to on behalf of the clean power s.f. customers before the city transitioned them to the new program. this slide shows you the current electric bill cost comparison between pg&e and clean power

s.f. green product service, for the average residential customer in san francisco. the lefthand bar on this chart represents the average bill for what we are would call pg&e bundle service which includes bundle supply. and the right-hand bar for the customers with generation service from clean power s.f. the bottom portion of both bars shows the portion of the bill represented by pg&e's electric delivery charges. so that's about $47 per month. you can see pg&e generation supplies on the top left are almost $32 per month. and clean power s.f. generation charges in the right bar are represented by the green portion at about $19 per month. as igist mentioned clean power s.f. customers also pay pg&e the

pcia charges which are currently about $13 per month for the average residential customer. given recent increases in the pcia, clean power s.f. green service is currently about 70 cents per month more costly for the typical residential customer. in order to support clean power s.f.'s need to provide a competitively priced service and to operate at a commercial pace in a competitive environment, the sfpuc commission adopted an automatic rate adjustment formula in resolution 2048. that was early last year. under the formula, clean power s.f. rates adjust if the pg and even rate changes result in the service being higher than or more than 2% discounted from the equivalent pg&e rates. under the rate resolution

automatic rate adjustments occur as long as customer costs will be within plus, minus 1% of pg pg&eservice and other conditione met. there's been two rate changes under this resolution, both which have been rate decreases. as you can see from the table on the slide, since the authority was put in place, pg&e's power charge and adjustment rates have increased significantly, whereas clean power s.f. generation rates have decreased. and most recently by 16% in january. on this slide you can see the trend in clean power s.f. rates since the sfpuc launched the program in 2016. clean power s.f. rates are the green portion of the bar and pg&e pcia rates are the blue

portions. so this is the cost of the generation service. due to the rise since program launch, which you can see here over time, clean power s.f. generation rates have now decreased by a cumulative 12%. next tuesday, the sfpuc commission will be hearing our staff proposal for modification to the current clean power s.f. rate adjustment framework. in developing our rate proposal we've had to balance competing goals. covering clean power s.f. program costs is required by the san francisco charter, remaining competitive, and providing value to our customers. >> your 10 minutes is expired. >> okay, sorry, clerk, i wasn't aware that i was on a 10-minute time on that. >> clerk: yeah.

yes, we stated in the beginning that we limit all to 10 minutes because we're going to lose quorum at 12:30. but, please, go ahead and finish up your presentation, but if it's possible if we could keep it maybe within the next five minutes and to wrap up. >> sure, yeah, happy to do that okay. so the staff proposal balancing these goals is to modify the existing automatic rate formula to be the lesser of either 5% above comparable pg and even rates after accounting for the pcia, or the cost of service. so the lesser of either of those two. and this chart is a snapshot similar to the one that you saw before that shows our projected generation cost comparison.

you can see that we're projecting in july a difference of about $1.58 per month for the average residential customers. to put that in context, on the full bill that's about a 2% difference. and i wanted to comment too since the pcia is a driver of what's going on here that we are expecting to see the pcia rate levels about where they are for another year or so and then we are anticipating that the rate is going to start declining at some of pg&e resources, and the diablo canyon nuclear plant is decommissioned and removed from the revenue that pg&e can recover through the pcia. transitioning here quickly to the time of use transition, clean power s.f. is participating in an upcoming

time of use rate transition that is happening in july. at that time, most clean power s.f. and pg&e customers will move to a time of use rate plan this was required of the investor in utilities like pg&e by the california p.u.c., it was optional for c.c.a.s, in late 2019, the sfpuc commission endorsed our proposal to join this state-wide initiative to transition our customers. you can see the information here. what is the time-of-use rate plan? a time-of-use rate plan means when a customer usings electricity, it's just as important as how much the customer uses. and you can see here that the etouc rate, which is what the residential customers rate is higher between 4:00 to 9:00

p.m. every day and lower cost electricity for all other hours of the day. shifting to the hours outside of 4:00 to 9:00 p.m., means not only lower costs for consumers, but it also reduces the carbon emissions, by reducing electricity demand when fossil fuels are utilized to generate power on the grid. under the time-of-use transition, customers will have choices. they can return, for example, to their flat rate, and to continue with the transition, no action is required of the customers. and as i mentioned, or noted in this slide before, clean power s.f. customers can try this risk free, while most residential clean power s.f. customers are projected to save money on time-of-use rates, all customers automatically transitioned to

this new rate will receive a full year of bill protection. that is detailed on this slide and i'm happy to take questions later if you have any. and wrapping this up, these are my last two slides. i wanted to share a quick update on senate bill 612. this is important. c.c.a. legislation is working its way through the state legislature. this is sponsored by cal c.c.a. and by senator portanpino and it provides -- well, it addresses current inequities in pcia policy by ensuring that all customers have access to the benefits of the resources they're paying for, and that those costs are minimized for all ratepayers. it would provide c.c.a. ratepayers equal access for the

resources they pay for through the pcia. and require them to recognize the value of all product attributes in assigning cost responsibility and determining the pcia rate. and, finally, it would require the investor and utilities to offer any remaining excess resources, not utilized by the investor and utilities and c.c.a.s or the direct access customers to the wholesale market through regular solicitations to maximize their value and reduce residual costs that are collected via the pcia and as to the status of the bill, on april 26th it passed on an 11-1 vote before the senate, energy utilities committee. and we're now expecting a floor vote to happen in the first week of june before it moves to the house. and that concludes my

presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> chair chan: thank you. director heinz, i really appreciate, and some of the items and updates, but i particularly want to say that i appreciate how seeing the recommendation, and that sfpuc is making to see how we can address for the 80% of the area median income instead of these federal standards, i really appreciate that effort. i want to make sure that i don't -- i want to give my colleagues a chance to ask any questions that they may have. >> clerk: commissioner mar is on the roster.

>> chair chan: commissioner mar >> supervisor mar: thank you, chair chan. and i have a question about bill 612, if that's the right number i mean, it's good that there's some state legislation trying to address pcia. which has been such a frustrating issue for us, you know, including as you highlighted in your presentation that the escalating charges that we have been subject to here in san francisco. how -- would this kind of bill address -- sorry, what would be the impact, that's my question on pcia charges from pg&e here in san francisco? >> yeah, the benefit of this bill is sort of twofold. on the one hand it sets very clear direction to the california p.u.c. that the

resources that ratepayers, including san franciscans, are paying for through the pcia charge, to be available for their benefit. and/or that those benefits be shared equitably with them since they're continuing to pay. and that has not been the case to date. pg&e has been able to continue to utilizing those resources for the benefit of its service to its remaining customers. which has, quite frankly, the impact of greening pg&e's portfolio without it doing anything, right, because it's creating excess resources. quite frankly, that's unfair to other competitors in the market it also conveys benefits to pg&e from our customers which are paying for the resources.

so that's a really important first step. the second thing is that by recognizing the value of all attributes, some of which the california p.u.c. has not recognized, that should decrease the pcia rate because the pcia rate is -- is the result of the valuation that the california p.u.c. goes through of those resources. so it concludes that the value is higher than the pcia should decrease. i can't quantify it right now for you at this moment, but that's the general direction that i would anticipate that the passage of this bill as written and implementation by the california p.u.c. would improve circumstances for san franciscans and other c.c.a. customers. >> supervisor mar: got it. thank you for that explanation.

thanks, chair chan. >> chair chan: thank you, commissioner mar. shall we move to commissioner singh, please. >> supervisor singh: sorry, i had to unmute myself. commissioner mar asked my question so i'll briefly say thank you again to mr. heinz. i think that my colleagues share my frustration and i share their frustration at, you know, the escalating issue with the pcia, which, i mean, has been a problem, and it seems to get higher and higher. i'll straight-up say that this is pure monopolistic behavior and it's not okay, and we have to do something about it. so, you know, i appreciate the work that you're doing to balance all of these competing needs and our need to be obviously fiscally sustainable

per the charter while we're dealing with all of this. the other thing that i just wanted to comment on, you know, having -- i have some experience in some of the budgetary work outside of this commission, but the budgetary work that is being done by the utility organizations and i'm feeling confident that there will be an extension of -- hopefully rent too, but utility shutoff moratoriums beyond june 30th. i'm glad that we're leading on this issue because we need to provide a lot of pressure to make sure that is included in the budget ask, and the budget process, while that's unfolding right now with the governor's revision, it's incredibly, incredibly opaque so i don't want to say that it's over until every t has been crossed and every i dotted.

but it seems that there's positive signs that utility debts are going to be -- that there might even be additional funding alongside, i think that there's a $2 billion budget ask from utility justice advocacy lines. so that's it. >> chair chan: thank you, commissioner singh. i too have an issue with my mute button for some reason. i can't quite unmute myself. thank you, director heinz, and seeing no other comments from my colleagues, madam clerk, shall we go to public comment on this item. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. checking to see if there's callers in the queue. if you could let us know if there's callers ready. if you have not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have

been un-muted. mr. smith? >> we have four callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. first caller, please. >> caller: hello, commissioners, this is joanie eison, from descrik 10, the climate emergency coalition and the citizens' climate lobby chapter in strong support of lafco helping the board of supervisors to draft and to pass this year the legislation to create and fund a plan for a local clean electricity buildout, good jobs, climate justice, and resilience san francisco can be the climate leader that it always claims to be by creating such a plan for a local clean electricity buildout, prioritizing the local union jobs and helping frontline communities. once san francisco leads the way, a renewable energy network for the bay area can be

developed because, of course, we ultimately do need a coordinated region-centered policy. what we don't need is reliance on long-range power transmission lines which are outdated, wildfire causing and hugely profitable for pg&e. they're expensive to build and they lose between 5% and 15% of the electricity they carry. paying workers from economically and environmentally at-risk neighborhoods to produce clean electricity in their own communities means future money saved when we won't need to build and maintain anymore long-range profit lines to increase pg&e profits which you have been talking about. and relying on clean energy will result in a reduction in pollution, cleaner air for everyone, and, a corresponding reduction in health care costs. so please consider making this plan happen. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. can we have the next caller, please.

>> caller: good morning, chair chan and commissioners. my name is bruce woke. i am on the board of directors of the haydash neighborhood council and representing them here today. and we are also a member of cal's energy choice and san francisco clean energy advocates. a question that i think that you should ask of the cpuc is from the presentation is how many clean power s.f. customers were ordered back to pg&e? and will they return back to clean power s.f.? and, also, for sb-612, since the state budget is mostly generated from taxpayer dollars, the legislature should approve the pay off or the majority of the pcia to reduce rates to ratepayers. this should be the will of the people and the state of california and not just the industry focus or support.

our board of supervisors here, some of you who are on this body today, should demand -- should demand this as an amendment on behalf of the people of the city and county of san francisco. i would also like to add that projections prepared for lafco show that even a modest city-wide local clean energy buildout program could create 10,000 local jobs. with the current virus and the economic crises devastating local businesses and employment and much of the local business and jobs lost as being permanent, the crucial that thousands of unionized -- local clean energy and efficient jobs to be brought online as soon as possible, so the san francisco workforce and the economy crushing from long-term unemployment. these jobs must be prioritized to ensure that marginalized communities and populations in san francisco are the first in

line for employment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. wolf. may we have the next caller, please. >> caller: thank you chair chan and commissioners. i will just mention that we are also members of the calians for energy choice and the clean energy advocates and we have about 10,000 members in the city and county of san francisco. i could not agree more strongly about the comments about the many, many benefits and moving forward with our own local buildout plan both energetically and economically. i want to focus on the presentation and i want to thank for the data and especially the chart showing how things have changed and how the rate changes have been driven over time. as, you know, from 2013-2016 as

we pushed for the program to be launched, a big concern was that clean power s.f. would ever be more expensive than pg&e service. in the early days of p.c.a. that was considered a debt boil. if you are more expensive than pg&e, everyone would flee your service and the program would crater and die. so keeping our costs below pg&e was kind of the main priority. leading up to the program launch. in fact, we sacrificed some of our advocacy on local build-out to focus on keeping the prices below pg&e. i know this is not clean power s.f.'s fault at all and this is pg&e, and as the commissioner rightly noted. but i would say that this new reality means that we, meaning clean power s.f., needs to market the benefits of the program much more aggressively to customers. there is the neutral mailer that

goes out from clean power s.f. and pg&e every year that show the prices compared to each and other we'll be more expensive. so we don't expect the customers, you know, who are having economic problems from the last year and a half to flee en masse and to kind of crater our program forever, and then we need to really get on the soap box and to start marketing really aggressively what the benefits of the program are, what we're offering to pg&e and why people should stick with us this is a company that has recently killed northern california residents, not once but multiple times. and coming out of bankruptcy required certain things of them but pg and even lets them out even on a score of zero on wildfire safety after all of that. so i encourage the city and the county to frame pg&e as a rogue actor that kills our neighbors and steals millions and millions

of dollars from the coffer of san francisco residents, including low-income residents who choose to be pg&e customers they tout low-income customers as you're hurting the low-income customers because you're joining a c.c.a. and we have people that are hurt by pg&e and we need to -- we need to make their stories public. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. may we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning again, commissioner, eric brooks for californians with energy choice and the grassroots choice, our city, san francisco. so i wanted to call attention publicly to the letter that 15 environmental and social justice organizations has sent to you that i re-sent to you this morning, calling for a local clean energy buildout, jobs,

climate justice and resiliency plan to be developed by this year by the city and the county of san francisco. it's crucial, you know, that this program was originally back in 2004, the sfpuc was directed to -- to create this program. it took, you know, 12 years after that just to get it off the ground in 2016. we had been asking for local buildout plans since 2004 when we started this. and then now five years later after the launch with all customers included in the program, we still don't have a local buildout plan and we have been asking for that. when i spoke with the executive officer about this, he indicated that it would be good to show the community desire for this, and that's the reason for the letter that you have received. so i just want to make sure that is called to your attention and that what we need you to do

next, because this is not something that can just be done by the sfpuc, it needs to be done by the board of supervisors, is to call on the board of supervisors just as it did in 2005 to get the program launched to create funding for the lafco to do a local buildout plan, hire a contractor to do a local buildout plan, so that we can get this moving. it's been 17 years. we've got to get a local buildout plan this year and we can't wait to delay it any longer. that plan needs to be centered on local jobs and climate justice and environmental and social justice and economic justice. the communities that are being hit hardest by the climate crisis are the ones that need to benefit from the local buildout first. and then the last thing is that once the plan is put together, it must be based on revenue bond

financing -- bond financing is really cheap right now and we need to take advantage of that immediately. we can't possibly to do a multibillion dollar local buildout plan just from program revenues from clean power s.f. it has to be done with revenue bonds. so, please, do read the full letter if you haven't yet, and, please, get on the job at your next meeting passing an item to get the board of supervisors to give you the funding for creating this plan. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that we have one person left in the queue. mr. smith, you can put them forward. >> caller: hi, commissioners, my name is melissa yu and i live in district 3. i would like first -- first to thank the staff for continuing to identify ways to help us with utility debt as the moratorium is coming to an end and i am

also here today to join our community partner organizations to ask for a draft plan to build out 100% local clean energy. we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and transition to clean energy as we're electrifying our transportation and our building stock. we need to make sure that these are going to be powered by clean, local renewable power, and it's going to be really be important to understand as we are making this transition how we can prepare for job changes, and we need to know what jobs will be lost and what jobs will be gained, and also figure out ways that we can aid our workforce to adequately to make the transition. and how san francisco's most vulnerable communities will not be further burdened by disproportionally more air pollution, especially as we're having warmer and warmer summer

months and most likely another wildfire season on the way. continuing to fuel our homes and offices with fossil fuels exacerbates our risk of earthquakes -- or the risk during earthquakes, because of san francisco's close proximity to the earthquake fault. it's putting our communities with an increased risk of explosions and fires during these earthquakes due to the potential by these pipeline gas leakages. so we need to definitely get our reliance off of fossil fuels and we need a plan to figure out how to make that transition. and we think that it is essential to create a plan no later than the summer of 2021, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. mr. smith, do we have any other callers left? >> we have no more callers in

the queue. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam clerk. seeing public comment -- no more public comment, public comment is closed. colleagues, i think that given the feedback from the public comment, i am kind of eager to see and would love to have sfpuc perhaps director heinz's team to come back in either july or august to provide some update, and a presentation to walk us through the san francisco sfpuc integrated resource plan. i think that the integrated resource plan and hopefully that we can see the highlight, you know, the element of the local build-out and perhaps to help us to really understand, one, where we're at the this moment. and, then also, b, to understand where sfpuc is heading, both as,

you know, heading to the past 100% renewable energy, but also on the topic of local build-out so with that, madam clerk, please call item number 4. the next item. >> clerk: that was item number 4. item number 5? >> chair chan: please, thank you. >> clerk: just for the record there was no action taken on item number 4. item number 5 is a proposed budget and work plan for fiscal year 2021-2022. for the members of the public to provide public comment on this item call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam

clerk. colleagues, today we're doing the initial proposed budget and work plan for this fiscal year. we know that we need the final approval of this before the deadline of june 15th. therefore, we will have our special meeting schedule tentatively scheduled for june 4th to allow us to meet the deadline to approve the upcoming fiscal year budget. it is also my intent that we will be working towards syncing our budget with the board of supervisors since our budget really is tied to the board of supervisors' budget cycle, and their budget proposal. so i think that it is best that we sync that budget cycle. i also wanted to clarify that with this budget proposal at this moment that i think that some of our public comment has

also, you know, indicated that we are seeing a transition, a phased transition in the coming months with the executive officer goebel transitioning out of his role. we're looking to see a hiring of a permanent position for -- a temporary permanent position for an executive officer that would lead us into the new fiscal year. therefore, i think that it is critical for us to leave some flexibility in our budget proposal that allow us to really draw down the specifics in december of this year, because that is when -- how we're going to sync our budget cycle with the board of supervisors. today i have both executive officer bryan goebel and june latsmina, and i may have butchered your last name -- here from the board of supervisors,

the clerk of the board, to come and to present this budget together, because, you know, to help us to really have some continuity in december with this conversation around budget. so i'd like to call on our executive officer goebel and -- to start off with this. i think that if we have any questions i think that june from the clerk's office is also here to help to support that. but however way we want to present this budget. >> thank you, madam chair. and yes, she's here to assist with any questions and i thank her for her collaboration on this. and to the commission for all of your feedback. i'm here to present the lafco proposed budget and work plan for fiscal 2021-2022. and, again, given the transition

to a new executive officer, the plan i'm presenting today would be for june through december which cover my period to the end of december and have overlap with the new executive officer who would then continue the work for the rest of the year. these are the general objectives based on your feedback and direction. >> president maxwell:ly madam c? or madam clerk, can you see my screen? >> clerk: yes, yes, we can see the screen. >> thank you. so these are the three general objectives based on your feed back and direction. we, of course, continue our main role as an advisory body to clean power s.f. and take on a new role, providing oversight of the san francisco reinvestment working group which has a goal of creating a business plan for a public bank or a municipal finance corporation. and our third objective would be a new survey of that base of workers in san francisco, for

which lafco would be a partner but maintain a very limited role. the work plan prioritizes clean power s.f. oversight and the local buildout and it leaves open the option of developing a scope of work for a solar plus storage demonstration project at a vulnerable community site, and a role for lafco on utility debt relief and ratepayer equity. this work actually has already made so much progress up to now, thanks to the leadership of chair chan, which i'll talk about in a moment. so first step is oversight, of course. this includes monitoring all aspects of clean power s.f.'s development and management. though historically, we have billed for this work to the m.o.u. fund and we have bundled this in with the executive officer's duties with the general fund money in order to conserve those c.c.a. funds.

so the deliverable for this is ongoing updates and reports to the commission. the next priority, of course, is the local buildout which has been talked about today. this is something that the commission has been talking about for a very long time. the idea here, although many of the details still need to be worked out, is that if lafco would develop a scope of work as the next step for renewable energy projects, and, again, a lot of the details still need to be worked out, chair chan mentioned flexibility and the funding would come from the general fund and the m.o.u. fund with the sfpuc for the next steps of work, the deliverable would be a report to the commission, and the sfpuc. the timing to be determined. the next item that we've talked about is a potential solar plus storage project at a community and/or affordable housing site as a demonstration project. this is something that the commission has been on the fence about, but i have left it in for your consideration, the idea is

that i continue to do research on this in my remaining months, working with the sfpuc to determine the feasibility of moving a project like this forward. the other item is continuing to monitor the utility debt crisis this is a little dated. i intended on presenting this at the last meeting because the budget and work plan was continued, but chair chan, as you know, introduced a resolution urging action on addressing utility debt that was passed unanimously by the board of supervisors with five co-sponsors. and the good news is that the governor decided to provide some debt relief, so thank you, chair chan, for your leadership on this issue. it will be an ongoing issue and what i propose here is that i continue to monitor it. i have been checking my email throughout the course of this meeting because we are expecting a proposed decision from the cpuc today, so i'm sure that we'll all be anxious to hear that news and provide an update

at the next lafco meeting, hopefully. so our next objective is, of course, public bank. there are four categories under this objective. oversight, administrative and clerical support, the requests for proposals for a consultant, and, of course, the business and governance plan report. the ordinance establishing the san francisco reinvestment working group would assign lafco oversight over the development of a business and governance plan for a non-depository municipal finance corporation. a policy analyst position would be created primarily to provide oversight of the working group, along with other duties. the first task, of course, would be monitoring the working group and providing updates to the commission and the board of supervisors. this policy analyst position would primarily be responsible for this oversight and that would be provided with support from the clerk of the board's

office. and there's also the administrative and the clerical support, i think that the details of this are still being worked out. it would provide that, it would be the policy analysts or the clerk of the board officers or would it be the consultant? i think that this is something that is still being hammered out. and the other is a request for proposals for the consultant. that would involve developing, finalizing and posting an r.f.p., everything that goes with that process, and the questions, the panel solicitation and planning, evaluations and interviews and, of course, finally the selection which ultimately would be up to the board of supervisors. so, again, this would be given to the policy analysts. the other, of course, is just the overall oversight of the business and governance plan report which is the ultimate deliverable from the working group. so that is a summary of the public work that lafco would undertake.

the third objective is the gig research, quote/unquote. i say gig, because it's not a gig for most people, but this basically would involve a new survey of at-based delivery workers in san francisco and lafco would have a limited role and the executive officer would serve as project liaison, providing occasional feedback and support to the survey team. this, again, is a partnership between santa cruz and the jobs for justice san francisco and the cooperative, a little update on this, the fundraising is ongoing. and that is being done by the partners here. not lafco. i have no news to report on that yet, but the fundraising is ongoing. so now your proposed lafco fiscal 2021-2022 budget. before i get to the total i wanted to show you this slide which is our general fund balance over the years. you can see the history. the very -- the row at the very

bottom includes the amount that will be requesting from the general fund. the gnaw statutory amount of $341,240, are forecast spending as of pay 12th. and what we expect will be -- if we keep on track with the current spending -- the year end balance. the next slide shows our work order balance with the san francisco public utilities commission. we spent about $-- almost $70,000 that had work doing all of great work they did, and the balance in the fund is just over $129,000. all right, so the total amount for the budget and all of the line items have been provided in your packet. the total amount from the general fund request would be

$341,240, that's the new statutory amount and the carry forward would be about -- over $86,000. and the total budget amount would be $427,685. so the recommendation is to adopt the proposed work plan and general fund budget in the amount of $427,685. and requesting the full statutory amount of $341,240, from the general fund from the city and county of san francisco. and that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions at this point. madam chair, back over to you. >> chair chan: thank you, executive officer goebel. it's amazing and i just cannot thank you you enough. we're going to miss you because this budget is just -- it just shows how well you have been managing your work -- our work together at lafco. and i want to make sure that i

give the floor to my colleagues for any questions, concerns or just, you know, about the work plan and the budget. but i know that, you know, executive officer goebel worked closely with the clerk, with junco as well as my staff. i really appreciate kelly grove, who has been working closely as a team to really make sure that we present this budget in a way that provides some flexibility, but also making sure that we're accountable for what's to come and what has already been done. i see two hands raised. madam clerk, do we have commissioner mar and commissioner singh in the roster. i'm not seeing that in the chat >> clerk: commissioner singh has her hand up and so does commissioner mar.

>> chair chan: i'm going to go with commissioner singh, i cannot see the order of which -- the request was received. so i'll go with commissioner singh first and then commissioner mar. commissioner singh? >> supervisor singh: yeah, i just wanted, obviously, echoing thanks to the executive officer goebel, who will be sorely missed. you know, i feel supportive of -- unsurprisingly, i'm supportive any budget increase to this body, particularly because, i mean, i think that the number -- the issues that we're dealing with in our portfolio, particularly, you know, between clean power s.f. and public banking which is a whole new frontier, not just in san francisco but for america, and, you know, and also all of the issues that we're dealing with with a gig economy. we have a justification for a pretty large clean budget. i want to also flag, you know,

one thing that i'll be keeping an eye out for and one thing they do want all of the people to be cognizant of is just keeping an eye on how much we'll need and we rely on the services of counsel and the legal advice as we proceed, particularly with public banking. i can even see that playing a role as we potentially maybe get further into what is actionable on the labor side as well. but, you know, in the immediate term, like, as much as we can, you know, to keep track of how much we're spending on council and understand that that is going to just be a necessary part of our work as we move forward with public bank and that, you know, good lawyers cost good money. you know, this is something that i want to make a note of, you know, for the record. so, otherwise, yeah, i'm extremely supportive of this budget and the scope of work and thank you. thank you, officer goebel.

>> chair chan: thank you, commissioner singh. commissioner mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks, chair chan. and just to echo the words of appreciation to the executive officer goebel for all of his great work and developing this proposed work plan and the budget. and i appreciate that the good discussion that we've had here at the board over the past several months about the work plan and the budget. and, yeah, this looks great to me and i'm supportive of it. i just had some questions about the staffing in the budget. so for the -- there's a policy analyst for the public bank, and this is a new position and i wanted to understand it better, just as the budget aspect of it i definitely see the need to add that capacity to lafco but it looks like it's the cost is not

the full cost of what the analyst would be. could you explain that. >> i'm happy to step in and to sort of explain a bit. and the clerk as the board of supervisors and the supervisor dean preston himself, who is soon to be your alternate commissioner mar, as our commission or this body. the policy analyst is actually going to helping to clerking and working with -- the public bank working group that supervisor dean preston has legislated going through the board process it looks like with that though that the staff will also support a variety of issues, you know, on lafco, but, mainly it's

going to be coming actually from the clerk -- from the board of supervisors' budget, that is the majority of the salary, where essentially borrowing that decision, and we're bridging using lafco budget to bridge the budget gap to convert that staff for one year into a lafco staff to speak -- so to speak. but, junco, would you like to elaborate and explain, probably better than i do in terms of the process? >> chair chan, the clerk's office. so that is correct, the clerk's office has one vacant legislated clerk position. and we had a discussion potentially to lend our position for one year for lafco's public bank working group work.

but that position will be upgraded to higher position so we're asking lafco to cover the decision between the higher position and the existing clerk's position with about $25,000. >> supervisor mar: got it, yeah, that's helpful and it sounds like a good deal for lafco, so thank you for working that out. yeah. and then i also just had a question about the line -- or the consultant -- or consulting services with banner -- if i'm reading it right -- actually, is that in the budget? yeah. and then given, you know, the status of the -- you know, that banner is -- we're going to end that contract. i just wanted to get a little explanation of that.

>> sure, thanks for the question, commissioner mar. bryan goebel, executive officer so the funding for vanner has come from our m.o.u. fund with the san francisco public utilities commission. the balance is currently just over $129,000. when we brought vanner on board after doing the r.f.q., to support oversight of clean power s.f., that was for service area one. and there were also three other consultants who qualified in that service area, but there were also two other service areas, local buildout of renewable energy projects and service three for communities of concern. we could engage the consultants that have been prequalified. it's been almost a year since i have been in contact with them, but if the commission desires that we could go back and to see what consultants are still

interested in the work, those that are prequalified, or we could issue a new r.f.q. or a new r.f.p. for a new consultant using the m.o.u. funds. but i would leave that up to the direction of the commission. >> supervisor mar: thank you. and i'm just looking at the draft work plan for local buildout and it shows staffing for the executive officer, project management as well as a policy analyst and then consultant banner. is that the consultant services through vanner for local build-out -- not vanner, but i guess that it would be a different consultant likely. and then the policy analysis analyst, is that in the budget? >> i think that the -- thank you, commissioner mar. i think that the documents that we're looking at are dated. this just happened in the last few weeks that we found out that vanner wasn't going to extend

its contract. so i think that in the beginning when we were in discussions about a policy analyst, that there was talk of perhaps, you know, the analyst doing some of the clean power s.f. work, but that has since changed. and chair chan, feel free to chime in if you have anything to add around that. >> chair chan: sure. i think that commissioner mar is bringing up a really good point with the focus on this specific, you know, around local buildout i think that it is time and i look to my fellow commissioners to look for feedback as well, that, you know, that i think that it is something that perhaps we should look to in the -- in the coming months and in the next two meetings to really think about how do we approach sfpuc in terms of our ongoing partnership and for the m.o.u.

obviously, the update of the m.o.u. will then have to be going through the board of supervisors, and try to figure this out as well. so i think that's the question, through this budget proposal, to really think about where we're heading with our budget. obviously, i think that the m.o.u. with sfpuc is dependent on that conversation, but it is time for us to pick up where we left off and to perhaps is to update the m.o.u. between lafco and sfpuc. >> got it, thanks, i'm just looking at the document linked in the agenda, the budget document. i'm sorry, just trying to understand this. so in the budget proposal, the

$427,685 budget proposal, there's not really any -- it doesn't include the -- for the local buildout work plan. it doesn't include the policy analyst or the consulting services through vanner, right? but that -- but it could be included in the p.u.c. work order budget? >> that's correct, commissioner mar. that -- the m.o.u. funds -- the budget that's before you today is the general -- is the general fund budget. and the carryover from lafco. any spending of the m.o.u. fund is the at commission's discretion for clean power s.f. that is ongoing. so based on the amount that we have left in the c.c.a. fund just around $129,000, we could move forward with any work that the commission directs on clean power s.f. >> supervisor mar: got it, thank

you. so, yeah, i'm supportive of the work plan and budget. thanks. >> chair chan: thank you so much, commissioner mar. seeing no more of my colleagues on the roster, madam clerk, could you please call public comment. >> clerk: yes, we are checking to see if there's callers in the queue. mr. smith, let us know if there's any callers ready. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue for those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. it looks like we currently have two callers in the queue. mr. smith, if you could put the first caller forward. >> caller: good morning again, commissioners, eric brooks, californians for energy choice and local grassroots group, our city san francisco. so, yeah, i'm glad that we're having this discussion and i

want to thank the executive officer goebel for his long and tireless work and excellent work on all of this. the first thing they want to speak to is the public bank, that is absolutely crucial that this be done because all of those things that we're looking for, clean energy, housing justice, and gig worker justice and the other things in the past that the commissioners have worked on, all of them depend on us getting a public bank off the ground. and making it much easier to do all of those things. for example, chair chan, you have done excellent work at the board of supervisors working to protect tenants from long wall street landowners that are our landlords in san francisco. and the public bank is going to enable us to free ourselves from those big wall street landlords by doing things like co-ops, a lot more co-op and land trusts

for tenants and so it would help you do that work as well. i wanted to make sure clearly specify what we're asking you to do on local build-out with this sign on letter being put forward is that is above and beyond your current budget. to do a local build-out plan would cost as much as the budget in front of you and possibly twice as much to do it right, and that means that you need the lafco to ask the board of supervisors for sufficient funds to do that, several hundred thousand, maybe a million or something like that. that would just mean that the board of supervisors taking a very tiny amount out of the money that it's going to get from the federal government for infrastructure and further funds that are going to come forward on covid relief. so we do need you to right away to make that request to the board. it could be done through an sfpuc m.o.u., but that process has been pretty clunky in the past, so it might make more

sense to just have the board to directly -- direct the funding to lafco to do a build-out plan so that lafco could take the lead on that. sfpuc and its staff have done a good job of getting the program off the ground and keeping it alive, and that's what they need to stay focused on is this competition with pg&e and making sure that they're giving costs -- cost sensitive reliable service to customers. we need the board of supervisors and lafco to direct the build-out process because that's a bigger picture thing that the whole city family needs to be part of, including agencies like the san francisco environment. so let's make sure and right away to get that bigger budget request from the board of supervisors, however you decide that you're going to do it, we need it to happen so that we can get this off the ground and get what the letter is asking for by this summer. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments.

may we have the next caller, please. >> caller: good morning again, this is bruce wolf, i'm representing here now public net san francisco coalition. and, again, the haydash neighborhood council. we appreciate executive director goebel's service and contributions, we wish you well on your next adventure. we can't talk about gig workers without mentioning the internet we strongly urge lafco to plan for the return efforts to build the community broadband, a.k.a. city-wide fiber, that has been an ongoing desired service for our residents and businesses for nearly two decades. we have already spent nearly $2 million on studies by columbia technology company that has given almost duplicate reports, but for every time they provide the report it's just the cost of development that has gone up. while we're not an urban desert, we still have a severe digital

decide or a deficit in digital inclusion for many marginalized groups in the city. also it would benefit clean power s.f. build-outs and public bank operations to manage and monitor that technology. we urge lafco to pick up where former supervisor mark ferrel who started an excellent ramping up of finally getting this off the ground with full community participation and support, to then suddenly drop the entire constructive effort off the precipice. this effort was started by the former supervisor miano and carried by supervisor ross merkerney and supervisor david cams on here in lafco. the budget analyst office has done an extensive positive study on this effort. for all obvious reasons of san francisco's intersection with the tech industry and community, and touting to be so advanced, we cannot claim this anymore, not being able to serve everyone

at reasonable rates. lafco is key once again in making this possible. all of the work that has been done it has been done for you already. we just need to drive it, and the department of technology is also on board from my most recent last conversation with the director there. public net san francisco is ready to work with you to finally help the city to bring this to fruition. please include it in your funding proposal to support this project. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, mr. wolf. we have one caller left in the queue. mr. smith. >> caller: hi, folks, my name is jessica, and i'm calling in late but i don't know if you have already taken comment for number 4? but i am calling to encourage lafco to invest in actual local clean energy build-out, local solar, battery storage,

wind. you know, the time is now really to transition into local clean energy in our communities because what we're really dealing with is transmission lines from these big utilities that are causing fires and killing folks. what we really need is to create those clean energy jobs and benefits that would come from building out local clean energy within the city of san francisco. if we can't buy the transmission lines right now and create a municipal utility, then we need to invest everything that we can into building out supply and creating our own clean energy infrastructure at home. so i just want to encourage y'all to do that. thank you very much, clean power to the people. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that was the last caller. mr. smith, could you confirm? >> yes, that was our last caller. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, madam clerk.

seeing that no more public comment, public comment is closed. i do want to, again, to reiterate about this proposed budget and work plan that we are leaving some flexibility with this proposal, meeting the deadline requirement of june 15 for the upcoming fiscal year approval. however, i do want to talk about the fact that we -- we really with the intent to sync our budget cycle with the board of supervisors, to really allow a more in-depth conversation around, you know, the lafco budget. and really dive deeper and into greater details about the lafco work plan, be it about clean power s.f., m.o.u., sfpuc, and local buildout, public bank and gig worker, you know, issues. all of these -- i really do look forward in the coming months to

have a deeper conversation, along with the transition with an executive officer, a new executive officer, coming on board. so i just wanted to, again, to -- the fact that today this budget proposal is not end all, be all, but i think that it's a good step to move things forward in the coming months. i think that i encourage everyone to continue to get involved and to be engaged about, you know, the future of lafco and the things that we should focus on, and that we can work on. obviously, you know, lafco, unlike any other counties, we are very unique because of city and county of san francisco that we are limited without authority to municipal service review and, you know, special studies authority. with that though, that doesn't mean that there are things that we cannot do to influence, you know, our local city departments

as well as our policymakers like the board of supervisors? and perhaps the mayor as well. the executive branch, to make some of the decisions about, you know, around clean power s.f. and public bank and some other issues, like gig worker and making sure that, you know, that the companies -- the tech companies in san francisco can be held accountable for fair wages and labor practice. with that, i don't see any of my colleagues on the roster for this item number 5. and i -- is there a motion on the floor from any of my colleagues to initially to approve this proposed budget and work plan and so that we can move forward to the june meeting for a final approval? a motion on the floor?

>> yeah, so moved. >> chair chan: a second. >> sorry, second. muted again. >> chair chan: thank you. i appreciate it. thank you so much for your motion and second, colleagues. madam clerk, could you call the roll on the motion. >> clerk: yes, madam chair, to clarify the motion, we're taking the recommendation of the executive officer from the memorandum. >> chair chan: yes. >> clerk: okay, so just for the record the motion is to approve the proposed work fund and general plan budget in the amount of $427,685 and requesting the statutory amount of $341,240 from the city and county of san francisco general fund. on that motion [roll call] there

are three ayes. >> chair chan: thank you, this item has been approved unanimously. and madam clerk, please call item number 6. >> clerk: item number 6 is general public comment, for members of the public to provide general public comment today call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. then pound, and then pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, now to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and then you may begin your comment mr. smith, do we have any callers on the line? >> we have one caller in the queue. >> clerk: all right, thank you.

>> caller: good morning again. one last time commissioners, this is eric brooks with californians for energy choice. and our city san francisco. i'm also a co-founder with bruce wolf of public net san francisco. and i want to speak specifically to public broadband and its connection to the things that we've talked about in today's hearing. i first want to endorse everything that bruce said, we need to do those things, and it's important to understand that as we get the board of supervisors to help to fund local buildout plan, even though the letter doesn't specifically mention it verbatim, a public broadband network city-wide and county-wide and even regionally is crucial to clean buildouts, because you need to have smart grids and you can't really do effective microgrids without having a good public broadband

system that is based on fiber optic cable that is put in the ground. and so that will be an intrinsic part of any big regional-wide and city-wide clean energy build-out plan. so i just want to say, yes, let's get that on your radar and get that to be included in this process as we go forward. so that we're -- that just gives another angle to this picture of not only environmental advancement and environmental justice, but also community justice and economic justice broadband is another piece of that. so let's make sure that is also included as we go forward and i wanted to second that. so thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i believe that was the only caller in the queue, mr. smith, can you confirm? >> yes, that was our last caller. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair.

>> chair chan: thank you. seeing that concludes item number 6. madam clerk, call item 7. >> clerk: item number 7, future agenda items. for members of the public to provide public comment on this item, call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. 187 097 3853. and then pound and pound again. if you have not already done so, please dial star 3 to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted and then you may begin your comment madam chair. >> chair chan: thank you, colleagues, i wanted to just ask if there's any future agenda items that you would like to proposal this time for discussion. we are scheduling for a june 4th meeting, specifically really focusing, again, really on the budget conversation and allow us to do the final approval.

of course, you know, that also gives us the opportunity to go over in greater details with the existing proposed budget and work plan for us to come back for further discussion. i don't see anyone on my roster madam clerk, can you confirm that as well. >> clerk: yes, there are no -- there are no members on the roster. >> chair chan: great. seeing no one on the roster, madam clerk, please call public comment. >> clerk: yes, checking to see if there's callers in the queue mr. smith, let us know if there are any callers who are ready. for anyone who not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those already who are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been un-muted. mr. smith, do we have any callers? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> clerk: great, thank you. madam chair. choirk.

>> chair chan: thank you, seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. madam clerk, please call item number 8. >> clerk: item 8 is adjournment >> chair chan: great. thank you, colleagues and everyone. we'll see you on june 4th. the meeting is adjourned. (♪♪)