two last amendments today. one of which, again, if you look back at the history of the park lit program where this was birthed, it was birthed out of the planning department. the planning department has done a tremendous amount of coordination. they've done a tremendous amount of traversing the bureaucracy. they are primed to do this work on a larger scale for our city. they can interact and they do interact with sfmta, puc, public works, building, all of this to make an important and effective program. i understand why in some ways it was amended out that this would then go to the final permitting department, but i don't ultimately agree that that's the right place for this to live and thrive. so one of my amendments today is that this will go back into the planning department and i welcome any response on that or i would certainly like your

support. secondarily, the thing if we have received any criticism of this program at least from my district and talking to the businesses, i from the excelsior to north beach, when you talk to the people that are actually in charge of operating these as an extension of their business, the biggest complaints have been when people utilize these spaces after hours and it's harder to defend those spaces if they just remain open 24 hours a day when people are invited to come in and utilize those space after hours. so the complaints i have received is people utilizing them after the business has closed, drinking, smoking, whatever it may be and the residents that were, one, already living above a business are now asked to deal with that on a much different level and i think it creates conflict for the business. i think it creates conflict for

the residents and the community. the second amendment is to say that after business hours, these should be allowed to be secured option alley, not required, but option alley. and, for me, that's most likely going to happen between the hours of 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 at night to 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning. that's the amendment i have in front of you, colleagues. i think the last final tweak that will make this program work effectively and so i submit them for your consideration. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. and you're making a motion -- >> supervisor safai: i'm making a motion to make some amendments and i know supervisor peskin will have some comments. i talked about them on a global scale, but i can tell you specifically what pages they're on and what they would do. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor safai: if you can come back to me. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. colleagues, we had this exact conversation yesterday at the

land use committee in the afternoon. and as everybody knows, this has gone quickly and slowly. i mean, this all blossomed overnight. it was a lifeline. it has been a bright spot during the recovery and i think we all wanted to embrace the notion of perm nance and getting it right and hats off to chair melgar and supervisor preston. we didn't let anybody push us around. there was going to be a ballot measure and everything was going to stop in its tracks and somehow they would all be ripped out overnight. nothing could have been further from the truth. this is a whole scale change and it's very complicated and the fact that is complicated is reflected in the fact that this is almost 100 pages of

legislation and let's be clear, this is going to evolve overtime. i would like to think that supervisor safai and i don't say this is right and that we got it perfectly. we didn't get it perfect. we're going to find out overtime that there are things that need to be changed and tweaked. but i think collectively and by the way with dozens of business and neighborhood organizations, hundreds of people who had constructive suggestions, not so constructive suggestions. i think we took our best shot at it. supervisor melgar took the labor on it or a.d.a. amendments that i think are right and just but the argument that's being made by supervisor

safai i think is and what the public wants and what we heard from business organizations which is one point of contact. now, let's be clear because these installations cross a number of departmental jurisdictions from public works to public health to planning there has to be interdepartmental coordination. that part is clear and i think we all understand that relative to design standards, but the point of contact should be the agency that issues the permit. that's where the rubber hits the road. when you get -- when you go to the planning department because you need a planning department permit, it is the planning department that issues that permit and they route it to

fire. and they collect that and appropriately so are the coordinating agency. this is in the realm of public works. the sidewalks, all of the chairs and table permits, those are issued by public works. these permits are issued by public works. i don't disagree that planning has a role to play. i think it's important they do develop those design criteria that help ensure that shared spaces are integrated into our existing urban landscape. like i said, where the property line ends and the sidewalk begins, that's not planning jurisdiction and the department that has long issued permits for sidewalks, minor encroachment permits, that is public works and i take issue with the contention that planning is the only department that has the expertise in outreach and as i nicely

needled supervisor safai as not only a former city planner, but a former public works department employee, public works also has a very robust outreach function that has developed over the last century and so um, i also take issue with the notion that in the current dynamic and i say that with all due respect to planning and staffing constraints. but just yesterday morning when we referred something over there, my office received an e-mail from one of the many kind of anonymous shared spaces e-mail accounts that are never signed by a person, they are just from shared spaces@sfgov.org and what did that e-mail say? "call public works." so, look,

this is not the biggest issue before us, but i really think you've got to keep the department that is issuing the permit accountable and that's why it makes sense. i do understand that this is where the park lit, that planning is where the park lit program was born. that was a very small. this was a much more robust program and i would contend that it has come of age that it is born, it is walking and it should go to a new set, the right set of parents who are ultimately responsible for issuing those permits. as to the public access issue, i really think that the land use committee which, by the way heard from supervisor safai on both of these issues and voted to send the legislation in your

board packet today, that was really a balancing act. it's interesting in the amendments that are proposed today. it actually goes backwards from what the mayor originally proposed. the mayor originally proposed that they be closed during nighttime hours completely, but that during business hours, there'd be an accomodation for general public seating within them. we balance that somewhat differently. we said during operational hours, there could be exclusive use by the business. but during nonoperational hours, they had to not only have a seat every 20' which is about the width of a parking spot. that's why we came up with 20'. that was actually originally 15'. we changed it to 20' because we heard those concerns. but there are some fundamental principles at steak and some

practical principles at steak. this is all public property. this is no different albeit than access to a beach these are properties of the people of the city and county of san francisco and the notion that you can't sit there after the business closes at 8:00 in the evening and drink your cup of coffee, which, by the way i've personally seen in north beach people hanging out. they're not sleeping on a mattress, they're not shooting drugs, they're hanging out on their property. i think that is a really profound important notion of the commons. on the practical side, let's be real. the restaurant that opens at 3:00 in the afternoon is not going to come and unboard the thing at 8:00 in the morning, they're going to remain closed

all day. so the response to that is then we can enforce upon them. why don't we just keep them open. by the way, as i said at the beginning, this is the function of balance and a function of evolving legislation. let's air on the side of public access and see how it works. let's start with that progressive liberal concept and see if we need to make adjustments going forward. i respectfully would not support the amendments today that we all three did not support yesterday. thank you, mr. president. thank you, colleagues. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. i will second your motion for the amendments, supervisor safai. i voted yesterday along with my colleagues to send this forward to you all as a positive recommendation from the committee. i'm so happy that we were able to work it out after multiple

times and input from the senior disability community, the business community. however, when we had the amendments at the committee, i was the person who voted against those amendments because i agree with supervisor safai that i think that, you know, the practical implications of opening up these spaces when there is no one watching is tricky and it puts the burden on the business owner that has spent thousands of dollars to build this space and maintain it. and i'm not, you know, thinking specifically, at least not in my district about folks sleeping there or doing mayhem. it is really the folks sitting there, drinking that cup of coffee or drinks, you know, after 10:00, 11:00 at night

next to the apartment building where the kids are wanting to go to sleep. and the multiple constraints there are and just sharing the space at the public space and i know that i have heard from folks in my district who are not so sure about the shared spaces next to the residential areas and because i want the program to succeed. i want businesses to be able to, you know, have that little extra income for awhile so that we can get over the pandemic. i do want to set up the things so that they will be able to do that. now, as to whether planning or public works, i do think that we should keep it at planning. it's not just this past year during the pandemic that planning has been ushering this program through, it's for the last ten years. it's with the park lites. it's with the different iter rations and it's a whole system that has been built within the

operationalization of it that refers to whom at what point and the timing of it that will now need to be undone and rebuilt again and this was what was said in the letter from the departments to us is right now the best time to do that? i think not. so i think that we're still building this program. i don't know why we don't have what barcelona has or any of the other cities yet. i'm hoping that we can build it. i think right now, i would like planning -- if staff has the expertise to balance out multiple areas of our city transportation, land use, business. i want them to still keep this as we go through and learn from what we've done, what we've done right. what we've done wrong because i think that right now we still need it as a recovery thing for

our city. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. colleagues, i think i have the pleasure as the supervisor for representing the richmond that also has one of the very first public park lit in our city back in 2014 which is simple pleasure. if some of you have been to simple pleasure, that's really a great public park lit. it's outside. it's been around for us since 2014 and some of the arguments that we're having on the floor today frankly was really very similar to the argument that we had then and as some of you may recall, it was actually initially known as "pavement parks" initiative that started out with the department. it became a public works program for the public park lit. the reason why being is that if you really think about it. public works really is the

agency that's responsible for our sidewalk repairs, tree maintenance, graffiti removal, beautifications in our neighborhoods. when we talk about multiple agencies, frankly, the department of public works is also the agency for department permits involving the department of public health for multiple reasons and it's because it has been tried and turned out to be true that the department of public works is an agency that can manage and handle issues like this. so i, for one, am actually in support of having this program stay with the department of public works because they have this experience, but most importantly, they really have the know managing sidewalks in this is tcase the shared space that we're trying to manage and program at this moment. i think last but not least,

because, again, the experience i have and living in the richmond with simple pleasure as a public park lit, it's been great, it's not locked up at night. it's a shared public space and, frankly, i truly am a firm believer about public space should be serving our public for some of our constituents, it's already removing critical parking for our seniors, people with disabilities, when they visit our neighborhood, commercial corridors. so i would like to see it continue to serve a public purpose and not for just one business on the block. i'm also thinking frankly not just about those are using the space on the block, i'm also thinking about the retailers and other business that now with shared space blocking views of their store front and it's impeding some of the way

that they can present their store fronts. so i think with all of thanks, i think what we're having and what we're seeing again thank you to our colleagues and the land use committee, it's been a lot of work and long hours. sounded like a real party but that i do not want to go to. you know, during a committee hearing. i really appreciate all your hard work. i do want to state this too, though, we could always revisit, we could always go back and make sure we can improve upon it. but as today, i am ready to support the legislation as it is. i also want to thank, supervisor haney who brought the resolution to us early on to urge the city to actually develop the shared space program and i also thank the mayor for bringing it to us early instead of waiting until later. so i really appreciate our work and i collaborate on this and

i'm ready to support it as it is and my apologies. i will not be supporting the motion today because i think that it's been vetted many hours and i think i'm ready to support it as it is now. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, president walton and i want to concur with a lot of the statements that supervisor chan just made and i won't be supporting amendments on this today, but also do want to echo the spirit of this being the start really of the next chapter of the shared spaces program. this started as a very temporary program. it's now moving to something more permanent. i can guarantee you it's not going to be the last time that this body is looking at what the right parameters are and how to balance all these interests. i do want to just take a moment to recognize just a tremendous amount of work that went into

this ordinance by a lot of folks. i think that's what's before us today is really a very significant improvement to the original draft and i think this was such a scale that there was frankly no way one would do a draft of this and get everything right. can you characterize it as a party in the land use i don't know whether chair melgar would agree with that, but it certainly was a lot of work. i think what we did in land use and i want to thank everyone who was involved in this was really balance of interest between small business community, a lot of community groups, a lot of disability rights and senior advocates, neighbors, and others, and i do want to specifically thank, you know, both of my colleagues on land use, supervisor peskin, and lee hefner of his office. and my office who've spent a lot of time on this and i think

got it as right as it will be at this stage before we see how this all works in practice. i also want to recognize robin ibad and monica munavich from sfmta and all the small business advocates who connected with our office and shared really a lot of concerns, a lot of folks were anti-gentrification activists. people who were concerned around access issues and all the small business struggling owners trying to survive in the city. so i think that, you know, as i've said the first time this came in committee, you know, our office has seen tremendous success of shared spaces as a pilot, as a temporary pilot in district 5 in particular. we've received overwhelmingly positive feedback from constituents and from small business owners and, frankly,

just love in so many ways what this is doing for the city. i'm very proud that we're going to move this into a more permanent program. at the same time, from the start, you know, we -- i expressed a lot of the concerns that supervisor chan has spoken to. supervisor peskin has spoken to around how you balance what is effect ily privatization of public space and how to do that and i think we really listened and as supervisor peskin pointed out, when we started that discussion, the assumption was and i think the mayor's office and the sponsors originally of the ordinance envisioned that we would preserve the public access by carving out some percentage of the space for public use. and what was -- and my initial thought was, great, let's talk about whether we need to expand that? is it the right percentage? should it be more? and in talking with the business owners in my district

and in talking with a lot of folks who are public space advocates, i realize that we were actually on the wrong path and that the business owners felt very strongly that they needed control of that space frankly so that they could particularly for restaurants so they could reserve the tables and plan around their staffing, their food needs and that they actually, what they wanted was the exclusive control during the time they were operating. what they didn't feel as strongly about was what happens in the other times. and so, that's where this balance came from of saying let's actually let the restaurant or the business owner have control during that time, but then make sure it's available to the public the rest of the time. i think we got that balance right. it was a process to get there. i hope we don't undo that balance here through these amendments. i appreciate the spirit on which the amendments were made

and, as i said, we'll see how it goes and whether we have to change things later. and the same around public works whether this should be housed in public works and planning. this was an amendment made sometime ago by supervisor peskin. i have not heard pushback frankly until yesterday's final land use hearing around that. i think it makes good sense for the reason supervisor peskin laid out to have this all at department of public works as the permit issuer, but also this is something i think we should monitor and be open to changing as it doesn't work as intended. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. i just wanted to join. colleagues, in expressing my strong support for permanence of shared spaces. this really has been a transformative program bringing new life and vitality to the commercial corridors that are the life blood of our

neighborhoods. in supporting small businesses when they need it the most and also really bringing people together through community building and relationship building opportunities. i did want to just say that this program is more than just extending businesses into the public realm. the program has the potential for creating new forms of public comment. for example, if the outer sunset farmer's market in my district, one of the best and most transformative changes in the sunset i've seen in decades was able to quickly expand, doubling in size a handful of weeks after it launched thanks to the flexibility of what's now called the roadway shared spaces. on sunset mercantile, the sponsor of this weekly event now has further activated the roadway on 37th avenue beyond the farmer's market with programming for seniors, wellness activities, dance classes for kids and lots more

taking place on weekdays and saturdays all thanks to the flexibility of the shared spaces program and there are no store fronts on that block. but it's supporting countless neighborhood businesses and home base businesses some who are now working to open their own store fronts thanks to the possibilities and opportunities the sunset mercantile shared spaces has offered. so i really want to thank the mayor's office for their leadership in advancing the idea that these changes should last beyond the pandemic. i really want to acknowledge robin ibad and the planning department for quick and creative and effective work creating the shared spaces essentially overnight and overseeing it throughout an incredibly challenging year and then, of course, a lot of thanks to the land use committee for your thoughtful and difficult work. special chair melgar's work on the a.d.a. access and sidewalk

clearance and supervisor peskin and supervisor preston for championing public access to the space. and, finally, i want to thank golden gate restaurant association and all the small business leaders for your active and thoughtful engagement and supervisor safai, thank you for your thoughtful engagement in this and bringing forward the proposed amendments. i mean, i think, i understand you're rationale for wanting to have the planning department have the lead on this since they've done such a good job during the pandemic and also trying to address further address the issue of public access to these spaces. i guess, i would want to respect the work of the land use committee and all the work they've engaged in and trying to find balance and grapple with these issues and so i respect your proposed amendments, but i think i will not be supporting the motion.

thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you, president walton. and i want to echo all of the gratitude to the land use committee to the mayor and the planning department for all of their work. i think this was an incredibly complicated and long piece of legislation from the beginning and i'm really impressed we're left with really just two issues that are still needing to be resolved. in that sense, it's impressive how far we have come. one of the things i hear more than anything from my con stitch wents and for people throughout the city is a question about whether the shared spaces program is going to continue after the pandemic. it is a hugely particular program not only from small businesses, of course, but from the thousands and thousands of residents and visitors who use them and not only as it relates

to as supervisor mar said, what it's going to mean for small businesses and restaurants and cafes and bars, but also for the other types of activation. you know, i have seen a number of them that are being used for exercise, for performance, for arts, i mean, the pieces of this program that allow for that to happen at a much greater scale and level is something that i'm incredibly excited about and has the potential to transform our city in such a powerful vibrant way and i think that regardless of where we fall on this question of nighttime and planning versus d.p.w., this will lead to an expansion of public space in our city. these spaces will be open during the day for the public when they're not being used by the business or operator. and i think that's an incredibly exciting thing as

well. you know, i feel somewhat conflicted on this question of what happens at nighttime. i generally feel that i would like to have spaces be public as much as possible whenever possible. i also have discussed this issue with a number of business owners in my district and i know all of our districts are different and, you know, i represent the neighborhoods of civic center, tenderloin, south of market, market street and i think that the business owners there from experience, i think feel very strongly that they would need the option to have some restricted access at nighttime or the risks as far as what they've invested in as far as what may happen, the

impact on the surrounding area, the neighborhood. i think those questions and those challenges are very real. and i think that as you said, supervisor preston, some of the operators may not be concerned what happens after the operating hours and for those folks in those situations for a variety of situations including the convenience of not having to come in the morning and re-open it, they should just leave it open and i think many will just choose to leave it open, but i'm concerned about being so sweeping and one size fits all in the way that we approach this particularly as there are including in my district particular areas where i think that if they were required to leave it open, it would create significant challenges at nighttime with behavior that was disruptive, even dangerous, destructive and

it's an unfortunate, you know, this shared space program is not going to solve the broader social challenges and economic problems and public safety issues that we have in our city, but i think the question of whether we put this and how much of it we put on the operators themselves and how much we can expect a small business to be able to bear, i think is a question that weighs on me particularly in the neighborhoods we still have a huge challenge on our sidewalks and you could see the challenges this would create if we allowed for park lites to be wide open at night. many of the small businesses would decide not to do it so those are some of the questions that i have and how i'm going to make my decision here. but i did want to and maybe supervisor safai, when you come forward with your actual

amendments, if you might describe, you know, some of the particular language as to what, how this would operate and what specific hours and those sort of things and i do think many people would choose to keep them open, but i do think that some opportunity to have a choice for some particular operators i think may be needed for them to be able to participate at all. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, president walton. i am actually very thrilled that we're finally voting on this very critical program. i was an early cosponsor, supervisor safai, i think you forgot to mention that, you mentioned others. i was. and also even before this was introduced, i asked the city attorney and i announced this roll call one day to draft legislation creating a pilot program just to do this. so i'm glad we're doing this citywide. and i just want to address what we all know to be true is that

our restaurants and bars and our small businesses have suffered tremendously because of the pandemic. we know that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt because of it and this is a program that's going to help them get out of it and we need to listen to them. i absolutely respect the work of the land use committee. i actually am very supportive of the amendments today and i'll tell you why. first, with regard to planning. i've been here a long time. i was here when the parks program was created. i don't see any reason why it doesn't stay there. the department heads wanted to say it planning and the g.g.r.a. would like it to stay with planning. like i said, i respect the work of the land use and i believe the chair did also say she reported it. so i don't see any why we would change that up at this time. it should stay in planning. second of all, with regard to whether or not we're going to have these park lites open between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and a.m. and the idea it's

public and anyone should be able to go in there. well it's all public until the $30,000 park lit that was just built by the small business that's in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt has to pay for any damage. it's not public then because we're not paying for their damage. they have to pay for their damage. they cannot afford to pay for anymore things anymore cost to their businesses. so i absolutely think at this point in time, we need to listen to them and we need to be able to say, yes, at this time because we know you're suffering, we hear you, we want to make sure that we are allowing you to close these park lites. we know they cost you money. we know if they're damaged, we're not going to be paying for it, you will. so those are two of the reasons why i support the amendments and, you know, i just want to say, we have to continue to rally behind our small businesses. we have to do everything possible. i think this legislation as everyone said, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

i know that we've come up with a good piece of legislation, but i do strongly believe that the amendments today introduced by supervisor safai are necessary and i'm happy to support them. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you, president walton. i just want to also echo my thanks to the land use committee. i loved the shared space program. i'm so grateful for the hard work that you've done over many weeks and i appreciate you for taking the time that you took to get it right. i originally even though i love the shared space program so much didn't cosponsor the legislation although i would like to could sponsor it today because it's very complicated. it's unlike barcelona where i lived for many years, the outdoor spaces used by businesses for public space are in plazas or in hugely wide sidewalks. it's not a tiny dense city like

san francisco where in order to have the small space program, we have to take a parking spot or we have to remove a great part of the sidewalk. it's a completely different situation and because of that, it requires often a lot of negotiation between businesses that want very different things between public that want different things between disability groups and people that don't have a disability that want different things and i think for the most part, the land use committee did this right. and i came here today not sure what i was going to do on either of these amendments which is a rarity for me and which is why i kept moving my name down because i wanted to hear you all and hear your opinions about this because they're minor in the scheme of things. we are starting this incredible program that's changed the landscape of san francisco and

that has brought us this additional public space and ability to celebrate outdoors which, you know, we have very limited places to do that in san francisco. so here's where i've come down and i don't know this perfect and i also know like supervisor preston that this is not going to be the end of this -- of us taking up and tweaking the shared space program. what i would like to ask is that we can vote on the sets of amendments separately so that we can consider the issues separately and where i'm coming down on this although i really do understand all arguments, is that i believe we should keep planning as the coordinating agency. i especially think that because this does change the entire landscape of san francisco. it involves so many different

city departments. it often involves as i said conflicting opinions and interests and i believe the planning department is better situated to coordinate that discussion and consider the citywide implications of that. i see the department of public works as being more of a sort of permitting and transmitting agency and not thinking as big picture about the overall, i mean, that's what it's called. it's called the planning department for our urban space and our city. and so i am coming down on the side of keeping planning's role in this legislation. in terms of public access and closing it down. i have been working very hard throughout the entire pandemic to support our small businesses. i'm so excited about how shared spaces supports our small businesses, but we are giving

up an extraordinary amount of public space but i think the public should have the most access to it as it possibly can. i tried to survey and i did read a lot of the 961 pages of the legislative files, but i could not find in it quickly or easily how much mta is giving up by losing all of the parking spaces from this program, but i assume it's a fair amount of money and i think that's the right decision. i think even though m.t.a. is perhaps the most cash strapped agency of our city and is constantly telling us we can't have regular bus lines because they don't have money that if we're giving up all the shared spaces, then the public needs to get something in return whether or not individuals or customers of a restaurant or bar.

so i do not support the amendments about restricting public access to certain hours and i'm getting concerns every day from my constituents that are concerning me quite a lot. i do worry that having these open without supervision at night could lead to a lot more, you know, vandalism of these shared spaces and that will

then cost the small business significant money to fix. so i'm not saying that i am closed to the future to changing the rules if that indeed what happens, but i like supervisor preston think we need to air on the side of more public access and not less as we're taking our first step at that. but, again, these are small issues in a big change to the face of san francisco. i love it. it's amazing. i agree that it's incredibly popular, exciting and i'm really grateful to the land use committee for all your extraordinarily hard work on this. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor safai, i'm going to wait to come back to you. supervisor mandelman. supervisor mandelman thank you, president walton. so i think i disagree with the

initial statement that this is a perfect piece of legislation. i agree with the amendments. i -- we all love shared spaces but, really, we should be thankful for the city staff who over the last year have given mightily to make this program. car men chu andre's power. lots of folks have been working on this throughout and really the amazing merchants groups and neighborhood groups that have stepped up to make these things work or the street closures, the burdens of those things have fallen on the merchants who have been amazing

and given a lot. and i agree with those who think this is not at all the end of this conversation. i love the shared spaces program. i have concerns about where this legislation landed in terms of things like fees. i have some concerns about how we're going to encourage the folks who are making less productive use of their park lites and perhaps being more of a burden for other businesses in those merchant corridors to maybe not re-up in the absence of a fee kicking in until 2023. you know, there were pieces of this that i pushed to increase the amounts of fees in some ways to make sure there was a trade into the public was getting value certainly to defer those fees for awhile. but two years strikes me as a pretty long time. nonetheless, i think this is an

unimportant piece of legislation and something we need to go forward with. i think it has been understaffed. i think we have not provided the support for those merchants as i was praising a minute ago. folks have thought about it over these last ten years and i think that they, you know, i am uncomfortable cutting them out or limiting their role overtly at this point. so i think that that at least

for now, the right call is probably to keep planning central role. on the 24/7 access, i mean, i think it is great that in north beach there's not a concern about folks dragging mattresses into these park lites and shooting up, but in the castro, there was a fire in one of these park lites a week ago. every morning merchants who have the park lites are having to engage in extensive clean-up operations. so whether or not there's a devastating impact to the park lit, there's just a daily burden on merchants in keeping these spaces usable and i agree with supervisor haney. i think the logistics of trying to get these things opened in the morning will make it hard to close for the night, but for folks who are willing to have someone come and open up every morning for whom that makes

sense, i think we need to allow those folks to close their park lites at night if they need to to make it make sense and be usable for them and their employees and their customers. so those are my thoughts. again, i think this is a work in progress. i am concerned about making sure we're getting the best deal for the public as we transfer additional space to private operators, but that's where i am on the amendments. thanks, everybody. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mandelman. and hold on a second, supervisor haney. i just want to say a few words if i may and i'll come back to you and supervisor safai. there are a lot of people who have not been listened to during these shared spaces conversation and, you know, particularly in the beginning of this pandemic, i have in my district had to break up fights and mediate fights and concerns about shared spaces even

between businesses as well as residents and so a lot of people were happy about shared spaces and excited about them being permanent, but there are parts that are excited with them being taken away. i really do think that shared spaces has been the lifeline of our services and when you work and you go through the process which this legislation does include, they've worked very well and so i do want to thank the mayor's office and of course, everyone on land use and everyone in this legislation because a lot of work did go into this becoming a piece of legislation that i think we should be able to live with to support our small businesses and community. so that part does excite me, but one of these amendments would privatize former public

space permanently which is a little problematic for me and we're not talking about space that belonged to businesses pre-pandemic. we're really talking about spaces that were public and public had access to them. and public had the ability to use them and so the happy medium is access for making sure that the public can access these sites and these spaces when they need to particularly when they're not disrupting businesses. i'm just going to tell you something brief which is not entirely related, but it is a little connected. two weeks ago, i went to get something to eat around here and i ordered the food to go and we had the fire alarm, some of you may have remembered that, it was during budget and so i couldn't come right back. so i decided to stay and eat outside at the place where i just bought the food to go.

and it's funny because an employee came to me and told me that i could not eat the food outside that i had just ordered from them to go. it wasn't very busy. it wasn't crowded. plus it just didn't make any darn sense to tell me i can't eat the food that i just bought from you outside when there's a free table and i just couldn't imagine how some people would be treated blocking public access to former public spaces and this is a case where, again, i had just patronized the place and so we just have to be careful of what we do to our public space and what we take away from some of our residents and how we do it and i can just see issues happening. there's going to be a lot that we have to work through shared spaces, there always has been since they've been in existence, but i think we need to be careful about that happy

medium and just the last thing i'll say and i definitely agree with supervisor peskin in terms of air and caution towards public access. that is going to be important. there's another thing that which is an unfortunate situation, but if someone wanted to be destructive, if someone wanted to vandalize a restaurant, a shared space, a facility, i'm not sure there's too much we can do or have been able to do quite frankly in general about something like that and so i wouldn't want to deny public access if that is completely our line of thinking. so i definitely cannot support the amendment that's going to deny public access to our residents here in the city. and i do agree with the fact that d.p.w. has been responsible for the spaces that our shared spaces happen to be

in and exist in and so it makes sense for them to be the entity that deals with shared spaces and works through the issues and concerns with shared spaces with the exception, of course, of design and things that planning should be responsible for. so i just wanted to put my thoughts on the record, but i do want to really say thank you to everyone who came up with the legislation because it's been hard for certain people in community to lose access to places that they've had and coming up with something that i think we can get to a good space with has been pretty hard and i want to appreciate all of you for that. supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: supervisor safai was on before. okay. two things. one is i wanted to ask if the legislation addresses in any way the question of liability particularly as we're

discussing what is happening at nighttime. you know, if somebody makes investments into building a structure, that structure is required to stay open if that structure is then used for criminal activity or other sorts of things or even damages as a result surrounding buildings, is that business owner or property owner liable for it or can that lead to them being having their permit revoked? a situation again, if we're going to leave these open at night in my district, a business owner may say, fine, i'm not responsible for anything that happens at night in this space and the city's responsible at that point. so when that space becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood, there are huge crowds gathering there, it's not noise complaints. it's potentially even more

extensive behavior that is problematic for the neighborhood, the bids own are may say, well then that has nothing to do with me because i'm being forced to keep this open. does the legislation speak to those questions at all and could that be an inappropriate use? would they be responsible to make sure it's not used in certain way that has negative behavior. i don't know how i would be able to explain to many of the operators right now in my district that currently when they're done operating in the evening or night they have a gate they put up, now they have to leave that gate wide open and what exactly that will mean for their responsibility as to what happens there throughout the night. i think at least from my district, it's a very serious issue in question that will be the main thing that come up for people on market street and the tenderloin and south of market. >> president walton: does anybody who is familiar with

the legislation. >> supervisor peskin: mr. president, i can rise to a point of legislation [please stand by] they have their permit revolkswagenned as a result of

that, or is it out of their hands when they're not there? it is in some ways their responsibility if they built the structure. >> i would say also supervisor haney, that dynamic exists right now with all of our businesses, right. you look at every business, if something is happens after hours, if something is happening in their area, the responsibility has been the same for all of our businesses in that manner. i mean, i don't know if that is addressed specifically in the legislation. i don't think it is that way. but i do think that that dynamic already exists, but i definitely understand your concerns. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: yeah, i want to address a couple of the points. one -- one point right off the bat -- just in terms of privatizing public space -- anyone that has a driveway in this city, you have a single family home or you live in any part of the city, that driveway

is in the public right-of-way. that is private use of public space. i know our residents get upset when we talk about requirements that go along with it, i know that almost the entire marina green set back from that area -- all of those homes, every single amount of that yard is in public space. we issue minor and major encroachment permits. this is construction and i'm looking at the former president of the planning commission because she dealt with them all the time. this is not a permanent privatization. this is a permit of use. so let's talk about a scenario -- the city needs to re-do a street. this shared space on that street. guess whose cost it is to remove that shared space? guess whose cost it is to reconstruct that shared space? the permittee. there is so much layers that we

have thought about in this process but the idea of keeping it open to the public we address, and it was debated considerably in the land-use committee and it is going to be, it's written into the legislation that there has to be dedicated space for the public. what we're saying is we're going above and beyond that. when the,s shut down and there's no more patrons we're saying, let's leave it open to everybody. leave it open entirely to the public, when there are no eyes and ears on that, other than the residents immediately adjacent to that. so when i say that the only calls i have received in terms of complaints, other than what you said, supervisor walton, some people disturbed about not being able to park where they once did and get in and out of some of the adjacent businesses are the ones that have continuously been used after hours, non-supervised and non-patrons utilizing the space and are disrupting the environment that they're in.

so my concern is -- and the reason i bring that up -- i'm fine if we want to put more defined times around that. originally -- right now it says after hours. if we want to put defined times on that, i think that makes sense. but the idea of requiring the business to keep them open and then, one, continuously maintain them, continuously be liable for activity that happens in them, it does not make sense to me and we're setting ourselves up for this to be severely criticized. supervisor haney, i know some of the businesses there were probably given the choice of remove them all together and shut them down, and that's the same thing that's happening in my district, because too many complaints are coming in are the after-hours. that's why i overemphasize that and it seems that where its overseen, the planning

department's larger vision it seems that people are leaning in that direction. but i cannot let this go -- i have to say one more time how important this is because this will jeopardize some of these businesses. what we are doing to try to help these businesses, we are undermining them. and one last point, we in this city do shut down our public parks. there are hours when our public parks are not open to the public, and those are 100% public. those are not private in any way. so you cannot go into certain areas of golden gate park because they're closed. that's the public use 100% of the time. so if we're talking about public access, we are going above and beyond in this situation. we have dedicated hours of operation, there would be public space -- we're not saying that it's completely privatized. we are built into that, and

thank you land use committees who have thought about that, and asking those with all of the costs associated with, you are now then on top of that have to leave this open when you're not even there? that doesn't make sense to me from a pure planning and city operations perspective. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i just want to say in the earliest days after the original shutdown happened, i do believe that it was at grant and vajello and maybe there's many origin stories but where eda zobe dragged out seven little barricades and had the first prototypical non-built shared space. and later that extended to the 1300 block of grant avenue and

the 500 block of green street -- actually, i appreciate the fact that we got this into the legislation where, frankly, we should have taken back parking spaces from the car decades ago and we should be exploring really the best solution -- which is sidewalk expansion. there is actually a requirement in this legislation that public works come back within a year with recommendations of those concentrated places maybe on valencia street where the sidewalk expansion might be the answer. this has been a fascinating and a robust discussion. and i wanted to hit on a few things. number one, this committee actually did the first two years free, right? as part of recovery. and, yes, supervisor ronen through to the president, you're absolutely right, it beleaguers a beleaguered agency and we understood that we were doing that, and we did that with

intention, and we're robbing peter to help paul recover. i think that's the right thing. but in the same breath we are giving the most precious thing which we can give to these businesses, which is space. now i'm now in the recovery, looking at small restaurant top graphies that have doubled their floor space. and now they're seating twice as many people -- supervisor safai, i can't get him out of there with a crowbar -- and that's a wonderful thing. and he's making money off of that and he's feeding his family off of that, and it comes with some risk and some liability and we're putting the people's money where our mouth is. and, yeah, it comes with, you know, some risk. and that's part of the game. and i said early on i want to start with the publicly spirited

notion -- yes, with urban complications. that we err on the side of access. but there are things that we can do, based on complaints, based reports, etc. so i think that if we start -- and it's now clear given that pretty much everybody here -- i think that everybody here has spoken where the votes are and it sounds like on the one hand the votes are there for returning it to planning. and i'll give one more last pitch as to why not. but the votes are not there as to limiting access. but i think that we should commit ourselves as a body to perfecting that over time with the notion of a waiver program, with, you know, objective criteria as to how people can

apply to close them during limited hours with very clear admonitions that don't require a lot of enforcement, administrative fines and staff time about reopening. so i think -- that's a path that we can and should go down. the reason that i brought up district 3 in the beginning is because when you loot look at the heat map, the northeast center of san francisco is still to this day where the vast majority of them lie -- they lie along those commercial corridors in north beach, polk street corridor, as well in supervisor stefani's district, the northern part of the city as well. much less so -- i mean, with all due respect in district 11 and other districts. but we want them, you know, go forth and multiply throughout the city and that is certainly our intent. as to the issue of staffing, and this is going to be one more thing they want at least one of

you to think about, because there are five votes for the public works thing and it's not the end of the world if it's administered by planning. planning has said -- mr. robin aboud said to the land use committee, they did not anymore staff, they could handle it. they did not need another staff now i personally think that is wrong. i think it is incorrect. i think that it should be a fee supported program that pays for staff to enforce and monitor and what have you, but that was planning's official statement to this elected body. we know that planning is behind on permit processing and they can't do the c.u. in 90 days or 30 days as much as the mayor wants to streamline everything, it still gets stuck because they don't have the volume to do their stuff.

that is less true of the permitting agency. so you're creating more of a staff burden, ladies and gentlemen, at planning. i'm just -- i'm going to say it as it is. and they're going to come in and ask for a supplemental and we're going to say, shoot, we had a very robust conversation and you guys said you didn't need another staff -- that's what you said -- though supervisor mandelman tried to get you an add back. so i wanted to say that. and then if you look at the enforcement provisions that are set forth on page 46, number one enforcement agency, it's not planning, it's public works. so everybody -- you're going to have to go to party a which will have to convey to party b because the rubber hits the road with permit issuance and enforcement at public works. planning has a role to play but you're just putting planning which should be the middleman and not the front person in the wrong position.

but it's not the end of the world. i think that the public access thing we can get right over time. so i agree with supervisor ronen that we should in essence divide the question and i believe -- and we might need to hear from ms. pearson that the public access issue is only dealt with in one of supervisor safai's proposed amendments on page 35. and i want to confirm that that is true. and we should vote on that separately. there's a number of proposals that don't deal with the public access issue or the public works versus planning issue and i would like to at least understand those, particularly the reference to compliance with california vehicle code 21101 sub f on page 2.

i have no idea what part of the california vehicle code that is or why you are proposing that, through the president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor peskin, before supervisor safai responds, did you want to get some clarification from the city attorney pearson? >> supervisor safai: sure. >> city attorney ann pearson. are you able to hear me? >> president walton: yes, we can. >> i believe that supervisor peskin is looking for confirmation that the amendments related to public accessibility appear entirely on pages 34 and 35 of the draft legislation. and that is correct. the amendments are -- on my draft at least, on page 34, line 23, there's the addition of the word "not" and then on the next page, lines 1-3, there's the addition of the sentence "fixed commercial park let and parklettees may use the shared

space overnight" and that's the entirety of the amendments related to accessibility. >> president walton: thank you, deputy city attorney pearson. does that answer your question on that? >> supervisor safai: it does. and i just -- just one last statement. the golden gate restaurant association, what they really wanted was the use during business hours -- they got that that was the compromise and that's precisely why they didn't even testify yesterday. >> president walton: and supervisor safai, you can explain the answer to supervisor peskin's question. >> supervisor safai: on page 2, i didn't ask for that. i didn't. it's not even in my notes and i'm not quite clear why that is there. i saw it -- you referenced page 2 right there in the beginning of the vehicle code. >> this is your amendments and your memo that says page 2, line 20, and insert, implements --

>> supervisor safai: yeah, yeah, i understand but i'm looking at my notes that i prepared internally. i didn't ask for that and i am not sure why that was put in. so we can talk to the city attorney. i have no idea. >> supervisor peskin: but this is your memo to us. >> supervisor safai: i get it, i am not sure why that is there. >> president walton: we have a few more folks -- >> supervisor safai: i don't know. >> president walton: supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president. supervisor peskin took the opportunity to make one last pitch, i will do the same. i heard you say that the risk is part of the game -- i agree. and i also think that risk is easier for some than others. and i fear that we are setting up the circumstances for some to be successful and others not to be. and i am looking at you, supervisor ronen, and you, supervisor haney, because i

think that your districts may be the ones that lose out on this, frankly. so like supervisor peskin in district 7, i saw a couple of shared spaces go up overnight. and, you know, last month we had the high wind advisory for a couple days and i was actually really worried about a couple of these businesses that were just a little sketchy. so i'm glad that we are putting in design guidelines and all of that. but i want you guys to just -- i think that we -- i share the sentiments about public space and philosophically i'm there. i think on a practical level, i am afraid of what we're setting up in terms of this program. so think about it if you're a business owner that is already $100,000, $150,000 in debt and you're being asked to put together, you know, to invest even more. so that you can recoup, you know, the debt that you're in.

and you want it to be nice. you know, you want it to look good and you want it to be comfortable for your customers, but then you're also risking it, and you're risking your insurance rates to go up and you're risking all kinds of things that has happened and you have absolutely no control of what happened when you're not there. and so what i hear is that the businesses that are well capitalized, that are in neighborhoods where there is low crime and neighborhoods where things are quiet and there are not people sleeping very close to your space, in those neighborhoods the businesses will thrive. the park lets will thrive. the shared spaces will thrive. but in areas where those things are not the case, where businesses don't have lots of, you know, cash to invest -- where there are neighbors really close together who are going to be bothered by somebody drinking at 11:00 or 12:00 at night, where there is a potential for

eyes not to be on the street and things to happen in those areas i fear that this will not be successful. so i am open to seeing if we can figure out how to put in controls. i think that this will be evolving. but just like we close down city hall at night and the parks at night, i do think that it behoove us to put some parameters around this to ensure the success of the program. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you, supervisor melgar, i think that was very well said. you know, i definitely fear that requiring these to stay open at night would render them unworkable for many neighborhoods that i represent and many of the small businesses that currently operate them. i think that the level of investment that will be needed when they have to weigh the risk involved, the very real risk -- and not only the risk in terms

of the property, but what i fear this is going to lead to is a lot of conflict between the small businesses and the surrounding areas, because if you're keeping a parklet or a shared space open at night, there's lots of activity that you are not there to monitor that is happening at night. who is negotiating or mediating between the neighbor -- the surrounding businesses? i know that we're looking at the cost of this program, but does it include any significant funding or staffing to help to mediate and sort of monitor? i mean, i think that at least as i imagine this, this would really greatly increase the level of staffing that would be required for mediation, for, you know, for monitoring of certain types of things that are happening off hours. so, you know, i worry about not only the costs for the small business, which is huge, but the cost for our city as well. for the cleaning, the policing,

the mediation. i mean -- there's a lot that will come with it, and i do -- you know, i totally appreciate as folks have said and support that the efforts to maintain and expand access, you know, to public space -- more benches, more public plazas, all of those things we should be expanding. i do want to say what we're talking about here are spaces which are otherwise parking spaces, which most times at nighttime are occupied by a single vehicle. i don't own a vehicle and it is not something that is accessible to me when a person parks in that space. so this is not a public park that we're then turning over to a business. this is a parking space that is usually used by a single vehicle. and when it is, it's inaccessible to anyone else. so i think that we have to deal with this in realities and i think that many businesses or many operators will want to keep them open for a variety of

reasons, and for that reason they should be able to. but for those who for reasons, including the differences across neighborhoods, may need to keep them closed during those nighttime hours to even make this feasible, i think that is an important thing to be able to protect. so i'm going to be supporting both of the amendments. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton. so i did want to just follow-up on my initial commenting that i wanted to respect the hard work of the land-use committee on grappling with these issues and in my reaction to the proposed amendments. but i think that as this discussion that we're having right now shows, i know that it seems like these issues weren't necessarily fully resolved in the land use committee, particularly around this question of public access requirement. and, you know, i think that, you know, vice chair peskin and then chair melgar's recent comment

showed. so i do want to just say on this issue that -- i mean, i do agree that we need to lean in more on public access for the -- you know, for this legislation, because this is going to be replacing the places for people program in our -- which is allowed the creation of parklets which for the most part is full public access in our neighborhoods. and this has been a wonderful and tremendously important public -- public space initiative in our city. and -- but the shared spaces program, even though they look similar to parklets, it is quite different in their intent. and it's really to support our small businesses and primarily -- and so i do think -- you know, this question of requiring full public access when the businesses close, you

know, is a real issue. you know, i certainly heard concern from businesses in my district. and so though i'm not comfortable necessarily with the language that supervisor safai has proposed the amendment on this, i would like to see how we can address this issue to -- actually as supervisor peskin sort of described a possible creation of a possible waiver or exemption to the public access requirement for small businesses, if there's some clear, you know, a clear case can be made that that would be unworkable for them. you know, i could see how that would be the case for a lot of the businesses. and then also, you know, i could see how this would -- would, um-- discourage the creation of

more shared spaces, or even the continuation of shared spaces that have already been created, particularly in the outlying neighborhoods, you know, like the sunset district just because of the potential liability and the extra costs this would add and the uncertainty for those business owners. so i would -- i guess -- again, i would support i think what supervisor peskin suggested, or looking at a way to address this issue. yeah. and i think that -- like i say, proposal to split on the proposed amendments that supervisor safai brought forward. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. i had a quick question, and then a comment. the question is for ann pearson is it true -- i'm trying to understand the legislation -- that businesses can keep their temporary permits through july

2022? >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. i will share with you what i understand with a very lengthy and complicated legislation. and so i would also ask someone to correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that the temporary program is not expected to last beyond this calendar year. so people who hold those -- those permits may operate under them so long as that program exists, but when those permits expire, they'll need to apply for a permit under the new permanent program. >> supervisor ronen: i see. so that means that it does -- it will expire at the end of the year if they have a temporary permit now, it will expire at the end of the year? >> again, i would defer to someone from the planning department to correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding is that the temporary emergency permit is -- will exist as long as the order is in place. it's expected to expire by the

end of the year. the permits that have been issued to date have been -- have an end date as i understand of it december 31st. so my understanding is that unless the emergency is extended or the mayoral order is extended, that those are expected to expire at the end of this calendar year and business is expected to transition to the permanent program. >> supervisor ronen: okay, okay, thank you. so, again, and i'm somewhat repeating myself but with the added fact that in the economic impact report of the parklets one economist said for businesses with the parklet, the average quarterly revenues grew by $56,000. that's on a quarterly basis. so the economic benefit to businesses of this as designed -- exactly as we wanted -- is substantial. (please stand by)

>> supervisor ronen: allow as

supervisor mar suggested individual opt-outs. philosophically, i need to stick with my firm belief, that's going to benefit substantially from it, then the public should be able to benefit from that as well and if that doesn't work and isn't practical, then we can tweak it and i'll be the first one that's open to tweak it, but i think that that's the way that we should air when starting out. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor chan, did i accidentally erase your name. >> supervisor chan: president walton, thank you. this is more for clarification. i'm trying to understand. i see the amendments that have

been proposed by supervisor safai is basically that one line to say to secure to allow the business to secure the curb side. so i'm trying to understand what "secured" really means in this case and i think in the language right now on page 8, pace it's by and public so or locked up with the stat really being in a shared space, because as we know that in the public park lit, design, there's no such thing as to lock-up or to secure it so to speak because it's just really a public bench and it was really debated for awhile, for that design to exist, the way that it has been for many park

lites throughout the city. so i'm just trying to -- technically i'm trying to understand exactly what we're debating and what we're trying to accomplish and to insert that language whether or not it really accomplishes what you think or what we think is trying to accomplish president walton thank you, supervisor chan, supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: so the secure portion is more about the ability to shut the space down as we've talked about here, some of the businesses might use a gate as supervisor haney said. they've built the ability to lock them up and close them down and so the question again, i'm just saying the question then becomes why are we leaving this open to the public during the of the night or late hours

into early in the morning. it is requiring this process to be open when the permit is operating the space. they require to have space dedicated, open for the public. so we've addressed that during operational hours. what i would say just to go back to supervisor mar's question. one thing we thought about that could potentially address your concern is that have more defined times rather than hours of operation, we can put more parameters around that maybe it's 9:00 at night until 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning. it gives them the option if a business shuts down, the cafe or business they might be using, maybe midnight. the date there's more defined times and so i guess what i would put back to you is if we did that, would that get to what i heard you saying? i know you said you wanted to have a more formal process potentially or potentially

create a more formal process for opting out or revisiting if we had more defined times, would that make it better for you? people understand that these wouldn't be open or neighbors that have some additional concerns. what i would say is if there's a business in the morning to confer with, i would just refer to that because i'm happy to make a more defined amendment to maybe 7:00 or 8:00 in the

morning again, i think a lot of businesses will keep them open. just as an example, supervisor walton. they don't have the funds. they can't afford to add additional security gates or removable gates that they can put up at night. some of them are in the thousands of dollars if they weren't originally designed into the shared space and so to amend their shared space and add that security space is an additional and so i've had a few businesses reach out to me and they don't have the ability to pay even secure it now whether it's not allowed. so i just wanted to put that out there, but i think having a defined time, maybe that would address what supervisor mar's referring to. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor mandelman.

thank you, president walton. >> supervisor mandelman: i think if it gets to the point where you would pick up another vote i think it would make more sense where supervisor safai through the chair, i think it would make more sense to have specific hours. i think it's a big burden to have to send someone out by 7:00 in the morning and i think that's a disincentive to closing something at night. to think about how they're trying to operate and survive and sometimes pretty difficult environment not looking over at supervisor haney, but maybe looking over at supervisor haney, i mean, i do think the burdens and benefits of that program let me take a step back. we are actually making it

easier in the legislation to have a public park lit. and you can't shut the public even with supervisor safai's amendment, you can't shut the public park lit down. this is for the commercial park lit and the benefit for the commercial park lit is twofold. one we have discovered during the pandemic that the commercial park lites actually improve neighborhood quality of life and they contribute to the urban fabric and even though some private actor may be getting some money out of this, we think it could be good for the community. and, secondly, we're collecting rent which is why i am concerned and i think over time we need to look at something that may need to change in this legislation at some point because if this is $56,000 additional business. but that's for down the road. i think this change now that eliminates the ability that

fore closes particularly in the castro, particularly folks who are confronting a burden that i think we are all embarrassed that our residents, that our merchants have to deal with, but they have been left to deal with this failure to take care of and house and provide care for people with significant challenges and that those challenges fall on the individuals residents and on merchants who are struggling and to say that they should have to come in and apply for a waiver and go through some kind of waiver process to allow them to close this down at night if the ability to close down the

night is the only thing that's going to allow them and others and, you know, we will continue the conversation going forward, i suppose, but. >> president walton: supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, president walton. i actually just wanted to respond through you respond to supervisor safai's answer. when it comes to actual design of being, allowing a merchant to lock up a public space and i think fundamentally there's an interesting dynamic at play here about the discussion here and i actually wanted to pass out the conversation in sense where i think that supervisor haney has mentioned this about the social issues, that problem that already exists. i think, president walton, you mentioned this too that it

already exists on our streets. it almost has nothing to do with the shared spaces. the problem that we're tackling with shared space is a symptom of really a cause or a problem that we've been tackling, the homeless issues and crime and all that that we are already tackling on our streets and in our public space. so i think, you know, when it comes to the design of the shared space, fundamentally this is actually the reason why this is where i stand about it is that i still really believe in public access is because we do want these small business or those who are actually making profit out of our public space to really think it through about how they design our public space with our city agencies to really think about how do we maximize the most

inclusive design in general. i think some of us know in landscape and land use in landscape design so, again, i think that's probably i'm going too deep into this, but i still believe in the public access and i think that this is the way we encourage those who are profiting from a public space to think about the most inclusive design and some of the issues that we're discussing already exists on our streets that the shared space program almost is a victim of that is not the cost of it. thank you. thank you, president walton and hesitated to get back on the roster as i think we i don't know that we're changing

hundreds of thousands of dollars per year as supervisor ronen pointed out a pretty significant benefit on businesses who were able to pay a fee, not rent and pointed out waiving that fee was really the consensus of land use for the first couple years. i also wanted to add to exclude chain stores from that waiver. i did want to respond to the question that supervisor safai

requested. we've been talking a lot about at a more theoretical level why it's important, but i just felt like i don't want to leave the discussion at that. i wanted to round out the discussion. i think we did a disservice to everyone to just focus on the potential negative and problematic uses of public space in his initial remarks and i would say despite the constant domination of twitter and local news with the problems of public access to space that a lot of folks use space at night. it's one of the things in the context of things like public transportation when we talk about the hardships of people at night.

there's an now there's a bench. we are a city that has strict bench. park lites are this amazing reactivation of space and people walking a dog, a security guard who gets off work and, you know, they've been on their feet all day and maybe they want to take a break and sit in a park lit. a homeless person who maybe just wants to sit down. you know, let's not talk about homeless people and people sleeping in park lites and all the problems. let's also recognize that a lot of people just need a place to sit. sit down, smoke a cigarette, have a conversation, two people to meet outside somewhere especially in the middle of a global pandemic where you have to meet people outside instead of their homes. so i don't want to ignore the serious problems that exist and

that cause hardship to businesses that have open space, outdoors. we're going to have to work this out. i will say if you give folks the option for barely additional funds to privatize and lock down their spaces, most will do it and we have plenty of examples and not just in high-end neighborhood commercial corridors, but of true park lites, that have operated for many years. my hope is when we have so many more of these that they will be true public spaces when they're not being used for business at least let's start with that and if it does turn out to be a problem and a barrier for some businesses, it sounds like from a lot of the comments, there's an opens to further legislation to try to accommodate and address those concerns. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you, president walton, and thanks,

colleagues, for this really very important discussion we're having here about how to balance the needs of our small businesses to recover and thrive with the very important issue of public access and ensuring, you know, equal rights for everyone on our streets and our public spaces. i think i would be open to as supervisor safai said, more of a definition to this proposed amendment defining the hours, and as you said and i think that would be consistent with how we're handling our parks. i don't know what the hours are. i was just trying to look it up. i think it varies depending on park too. so i guess i would just say

that i would be open to that. yeah. as a way to again try to balance. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor peskin, did you mean to remove your name. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president walton. i have to say watching this legislation evolve, what the mayor proposed is more friendly to public access than what is being continue plated by this board of supervisors. what the mayor originally proposed but in the land use committee's balancing act was that the spaces be publicly accessible during operational hours. we jetison that. if we're going down the road that supervisor safai wants to go down, i would go back down the road that the mayor

initially proposed. >> president walton: are you saying it should go back to land use? >> supervisor peskin: well, that's a dangerous road. >> president walton: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: it might not make it out of committee if it goes back. >> president walton: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: okay. thank you. i'd like to go ahead and clarify my amendments. thank you, supervisor peskin, about the technical amendment on page two. i'm going to let the city attorney speak to that. that was at the very end of my notes. i did not ask for that. i think it's a technical adjustment referencing the plan. i'm going to let ann pierson speak to page 2, line 20, but if she can just hold on for a second on that. with regard to the constraining the hours and going back to the open space, my understanding is that alternative, it says in the legislation, alternative seating should include and defines what that is during the

hours of operation, so that is defined in the legislation. i think if you saw the word "not" that was not -- we did not ask for that. we asked for that to be removed so that it would be provided during hours of operation. i think ann mentioned that and maybe you missed that, but i don't think there's any intention to shut down public access during hours of operation. >> supervisor peskin: through the president, can you show me which amendment you believe says that? >> supervisor safai: it says here on page thirty-four a fixed park lit. six commercial park lites shall be provided alternative public seating which is accessible to persons and then it says not patrons for businesses for any person when the curbside shared space is being activated by the business. >> supervisor peskin: your

amendment says "not" being. >> supervisor safai: i know. i did not ask for that. that "not" was a mistake and ann got on earlier and referenced that "not" was intended to be removed. we just sent that around. my intention was not to remove that. that word "not" is stricken. >> supervisor peskin: she was merely describing as a matter of dividing the amendments which included line 20. >> supervisor safai: i understand. mr. president, that was not -- it was a mistake that the city attorney. >> president walton: why don't we do, supervisor safai, why don't you put your amendments on for record right now. >> supervisor safai: i'm going to put them all on the record, right. first. let's deal with the planning department and the city attorney did reference that. that was the mistake, but i'll allower to speak on that. so the technical amendment i will let her speak on page 2,

line 20 with regards to replacing the word public works. it's on page 14 line 7, 10, and 11. page 16, line 14. page 18, line 19. page 25, line 24 and 25. page 31, 15, 17, and 21. page 32, line 6. on page 14, lines 14 through 15 insert and provide wholistic coordination taking into account land use transportation and public space and urban design considerations. page 15, 1, line 1, to guide management of the program to ensured continued equity and accessibility by all intended users. page 15, line 7, insert oversee cross departmental tracking

systems to ensure comprehensive accountability and page 15, insert "ensure quality public education marketing community engagement for the program as a whole." and then page 15, line 19, replace "planning director" with director of public works. page 16, line 11, insert "planning." page 17, line 4, strike "review the overall concept of the application" approve the committee's program and operating event that is will activate the shared space. page 17, line 15, strike in collaboration with planning. page 17, line 17 strike to ensure integration with existing neighborhoods architect to minimize conflicts with existing sites specific fixtures and public right away. page 21, line 20, insert a. planning will review the

overall concepts of the application, approve these programs and offering of events and will activate the shared space and the event in participating the design review physical treatments or improvements. page 22, line 3, insert b and strike, review the overall content of the application including the program of offerings and events that will activate the shared space. now, this is to get to supervisor mar's question, page 35, line one, insert "six commercial park lit and movable commercial park lit permittees shall be allowed to secure the curbside shared space overnight" and the operative word is "allowed" not "required" from 10:00 p.m. to eight hundred a.m. and then the last one was page 2, line 20 and i'll let ann pierson speak about that and what she said earlier and i want to clarify for the record that the word "not" on page 23,

line 34 should be stricken. it should go back to the original language which says "is being activated for commercial use by the business." >> president walton: just one quick question, supervisor safai, are you making a motion for these to be taken at the same time or separate? >> supervisor safai: i will do all the planning ones first. >> president walton: so you want to make a motion. >> supervisor safai: i will make a motion for all the ones excludeing line 35 and page 23 with the word "not" we can deal with that secondarily. >> president walton: do we have a second? thank you. do you want to make a motion for the other one. >> supervisor safai: and then the second motion i have is for page 35, line 1, fixed commercial park lit and movable park lites shall be allowed to

secure the curbside shared space overnight from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. >> supervisor: second. >> supervisor safai: thank you. if those are not the right hours, i'm open to what supervisor mar has to say. >> president walton: thank you. did we want to get clarity from deputy city attorney pierson. >> supervisor safai: yes. that would be helpful. >> president walton: on page 2, line 20. >> deputy city attorney ann pierson. the vehicle code that's for certain circumstances under which localities may close streets, the addition we recommended subsection f of 2101 which authorized localities to prohibit entry to our exit from street to implement the circulation element of a general plan. if you look at page 2, you'll see that the planning department has already reviewed this legislation and made certain findings of consistency

with the general plan. the priority policy, the planning code. the planning department has already made this finding, but our office recommended that we just call it out. it's a necessary finding to inhibit access to streets under the vehicle code. >> president walton: thank you, deputy city attorney pierson. does that answer your question, supervisor peskin? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thanks, president walton. so i got some clarification from the mayor's office that most parks are closed to public access from midnight to 5:00 a.m. i think it would be more workable for small businesses i would proepdz midnight to 7:00 a.m. period. >> supervisor safai: i'm fine with that. i'm my original amendment to say from midnight to 7:00 a.m. that was for my second

amendment, mr. president. >> president walton: yep. i got you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: i guess i'm wondering if someone could explain to me the saga of the public amenity that was originally part of the mayor's proposal for the commercial park lites and i thought had been taken out, but is it coming back in or it was never taken out? >> president walton: supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i would say my staff got that with the intention of if we're going to define hours where businesses will be allowed not required to shut the space, we needed to go back to providing the public space during the hours of operation. i think that that's a fair approach. so we are not, so striking the word "not" is that what you asked? >> supervisor mandelman: so the amendment is putting back in the requirement to have the

public bench, basically? no. chair melgar is shaking her head. >> supervisor safai: do you want to explain that. >> supervisor mandelman: and also i lost my page. >> supervisor melgar: i think we're confusing two separate issues. i don't want to put -- i would never want to put words in supervisor peskin's mouth, but i think that what he was referring to originally was way back when we started with this legislation, we were debating whether or not there would be public access to the spaces themselves, not the bench, you know, that was something that you've all thought of. so i think we're talking about two separate issues and i think that supervisor safai is talking about the space itself, not the bench, the bench is a separate issue and that is in the legislation. >> president walton: does that clarify, supervisor mandelman?

>> supervisor mandelman: just so i understand, the last paper version which i have which is not the amendments have on page 34 that fixed commercial park lites and commercial public park lites shall provide alternate seating for people who are not patrons on the business is not being activated by the business and so the proposal is to take out the "not" that's part of the amendment. so they're going to have to provide some sort of public seating space while they're operating the restaurant. >> supervisor safai: that's the way we approached it. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm not going to die on that hill, but it seems a little weird. >> president walton: that has been a conversation for awhile. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i'm with supervisor mandelman. i was completely confused by that as well. so is -- so and that public

bench will be publicly accessible at all times and it's right next to the shared space. >> supervisor peskin: in the middle of the shared space. >> supervisor safai: part of. right. >> supervisor ronen: i would love to hear because i'm so confused. >> supervisor peskin: in the beginning, the mayor proposed during business operation hours there would be public accessibility. the committee tried to strike a balance and said there would be exclusive occupation during business hours, but during nonbusiness hours those benches would be there for the public to use and recreate on and smoke their cigarettes or rest their weary feet. what is being proposed now it sounds like with the removal on

page 34 line 23 with the word "not" that in contra vent of the balance that the community tried to achieve in the interest of the restaurant association of small businesses that those will be occupiable by the way with sign adjust on each and every shared space that lets the public know if they're right to sit in those so that when that gentleman comes to president walton who is trying to eat his sandwich on that bench, there will be a sign on there that says you can't do that. if we're going down supervisor safai and a majority of this board's will that we also need to conform the enforcement section so that if we'll are not opening up at 5:00 in the morning that that becomes part of the enforcement regimen. >> supervisor ronen: if i may, i don't understand that. so we're taking away a significant part of the park lit so restaurants can't seat

patrons there so we can't earn additional money to help them stay alive. that makes no sense to me. >> president walton: supervisor, are you going to answer? >> supervisor safai: yeah. i'm reviewing the e-mails we got from the city attorney and a lot of this was happening today. so i don't think there's an intention to contradict what space and arrangements, or required to open up the shared space. wanted to make sure there was space open to the public and there was space open to the business while it's operating. so, again, i'm getting advice from counsel as we speak, some of that is contradicting what we're trying to do here. i don't want to get too caught up on the word "not." i want to say of course we want to clarify. we want to have the space open

to the public. provided in this subsequent sentences after the word, "not" and i'm fine with leaving the word not. >> president walton: it's what we need to vote on something like this. >> supervisor safai: well, i think we talked about it openly. i think the language written without the word "not" goes back to march without the subsequent sentences that talks about the public spaces. so go ahead, if you want to jump in. i'm fine with removing the word. >> supervisor mandelman: it has been clarified for me the

definition fixed commercial park lites when the curbside space is not being used for commercial use, it's open to the public pursuant to the section when the fixed commercial park lit the park lit must provide public seating. so that requirement somehow taken out the not. >> president walton: were you done with your point. >> supervisor safai: i was just going to ask for point of

order now we have a discussion. the discussion is not over. supervisor mandelman, were you done? okay. thank you. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: i'm just getting more confused by this conversation and i thought i was already clear. i'm wondering if we could have just like a pause or, you know, before we vote on had so that we could all look at the same language before we get to vote. >> president walton: because we have two motions on the floor that have been seconded, we're going to need to vote on this. >> supervisor melgar: okay. >> president walton: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: the reason we spent three months on this is precisely so this would not happen. i feel badly for the folks who

since june the 7th when the bulk of these amendments were made who cannot be sitting in this room, who cannot testify are being completely shut out. i think it is absolutely wrong and if we are going to adopt these amendments, all of them, every piece from planning, d. p.w. which i admit is not a hill that i want to die on, but around this public access stuff and the balance and the compromise that the committee achieved that's now being undermined to exclude the public that has known about that for five weeks is absolutely wrong. so if we adopt those, i suggest we either send it back to committee or continue this anything less would be an abdication of our democratic

duties. >> president walton: supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: like supervisor melgar, i'm trying to understand what we're even talking about here. correct me if i'm wrong, somebody, but what we're saying now with supervisor safai's new amendments. so the motion on the floor is that unlike now, so all the park lites we've all been frequenting where there is no public bench that i've seen in any of the ones i've been at that owner is going to have to, the permittee for the park lit is boeing to have to build some public bench either adjacent to or somewhere in the park bench while they're operating a business which seems incredibly complicated to me and more problematic given that we're not barcelona and we do not have a city built for robust

public space outside. we are literally building these things in the street because we don't have sidewalks and now we're requiring the permittee to operate a public bench. it just doesn't make -- this just doesn't make sense to me even more than before. i think if we have a public park lit with, you know, some benches built in and we just leave it open at night and if someone wants to walk and take a rest and sit on there, i don't think that's the end of the world and i think we should experiment with that and if it indeed becomes the end of the world, then we can revisit this question. in the meantime, requiring owners to operate some public bench i don't even for most of the park lites they're tiny. they can seat maybe four additional patrons for dinner. i don't even know where they would put the bench. as it is, it's often times and i hate to say this because i

love the park lites, but it's hard to see when you're making a right turn when those park lites are there. where are they going to put the public bench. there's just no space. let's just be real itselfic. we don't have a lot of space for these. we're pushing the limits as i think we should be for this, but to say we need a public bench next to the park lit because we're afraid of human beings sitting on a seat inside the park lit seems ridiculous to me and seems like, wow, we've come so far in this city that we're afraid of the people that live and work here that we can't keep a public park lit and so all the challenges of solving those problems, we need

to continue working day and night and it's not going to make it worse or better. >> thank you, supervisor ronen. i couldn't agree more. i do think that if we attempt to address that particular issue in the legislation then we will be having a conversation about this going back to committee. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president. i wanted to point out that we did all of these issues that have come up did come up during committee and to supervisor peskin's comments, folks did weigh in. we have, you know, very healthy public comment from all sorts of folks about all of the aspects that we're talking about today. so i don't know that we're keeping anything from the public because this was all these issues were vetted. so to the issue of the bench, i just want to point out that i disagree supervisor peskin that the bench has to be in the

middle of the space, that's not what the legislation says, you said that earlier during your comments. what it says is that the bench will be accessible, alternate public seating shall be included at least one public bench or other seating arrangement for every 20 linear feet of curb side space. it doesn't have to be in the inside. it could be on the side or attached to the gate. there's also kinds of design ways that you could do this bench and it's something that the committee came to, you know, as a compromise to have a public way to have it be there and not necessarily in the middle next to the patrons, but i just, you know, wanted to point that out. >> president walton: i'm going to make a strong suggestion now that we debate and can vote on each motion one at a time. >> supervisor safai: i agree. and i just want just to clarify one last thing as i read through it again as the

questions came up. i just want to clarify it "not" should be stricken. they did incorporate alternative seating or a bench. that was the compromise that was made in committee. i think that was very thoughtful and so i'm happy with the amendments the way they are incorporating supervisor mar's friendly amendment. >> president walton: thank you so muches, supervisor safai. madam clerk supervisor peskin mr. president, if i may through the president to supervisor melgar, when i said, in the middle, i meant within the confines of not in feet equal distance from each side. relative to my comment about public participation, i absolutely agree and tried to articulate that there has been very robust public participation. what i was saying is that we left the public on june the 7th and, again, yesterday with the

impression when supervisor safai came and proposed these amendments or at a high level, they were not committed to writing at that time and when we actually did not discuss them again as we did on june the 7th and voted 3-0. the public was left with the impression that what was forwarded by the committee to this board was what they were commenting on. that was my point. for them to be locked out of this room to not have the ability or right to comment at this point given the complexity and import of this legislation i think is wrong i am not in any way there's been denied public participation. perhaps, we should refer that to deputy city attorney

pierson. ms. pierson do you believe that whether they require continuance in and of themselves or whether they require comment. i don't think these amendments are substantive and i don't think they require a referral. really restores certain elements of the legislation that the public has not had an opportunity to comment on already. >> president walton: thank you, deputy city attorney pierson. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: i would just make one last closing statement in response to what supervisor peskin just said. when we did our inclusionary housing that he and i and others led on, we did a significant amount of work in the land use and transportation community, but there are multiple opportunities at the full board. the public was not shut out. we continue to keep that

conversation open. and to your point, this is not a perfect piece of legislation although i think it's close. and we'll continue to keep this conversation going and thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk. are we clear on both motions. >> clerk: yes, mr. president. the majority of the items on the first page pertaining to the planning department with public works all the way down to the bottom except for the public access item which is it belongs to the second motion that would be page 34, line 23, removing not in addition to the first motion on the -- the first amendment on the second page, page 35, line one. those two items would be -- would comprise the second motion and i believe, mr. president, that the page 2,

line 20, would belong to the first motion if supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: correct. >> supervisor peskin: and we're clear that page 34 no longer exists. the word "not" is not there. >> clerk: then that would not be a part of the second motion. that's the second motion. >> supervisor safai: no wait. i'm sorry. you confused me. the word "not" is included. i'm sorry. i'm confusing myself. it is struck. it is part of my amendments. you're absolutely right. it is struck. krengt. on the second amendment. >> clerk: the second amendment as i said would comprise. >> supervisor peskin: madam clerk, why don't we -- let's see if we can pull this up. where is victor young. >> clerk: mr. jalipa, do you

have a copy? >> president walton: supervisor peskin, you don't have one in front of you? >> supervisor peskin: i'm about to people keep e-mailing me. >> president walton: the e-mail is not going to be the record. >> supervisor peskin: i understand. so all, the first motion is supervisor safai's proposed amendments to replace public works with planning on pages 14, 15, 6 teen, 18, 25, 31, and 32, and then all of the amendments that follow page 34, line 24 is struck. page 35, line 1 is a separate amendment. page 2, line 20 is part of the

first amendment. >> supervisor safai: correct and supervisor mar's amendment midnight to 7:00 a.m. >> president walton: friendly amendment was 7. >> supervisor safai: nice try. >> president walton: all right. madam clerk. >> clerk: on the first amendment, motion by supervisor safai seconded by supervisor melgar. okay. supervisor haney, [roll call] >> supervisor safai: we're all confused today. >> clerk: [roll call]

there are eight ayes and three noes. >> supervisor: you missed me. >> clerk: apologies. i actually put your yes and his no in your column. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: well you got me right. >> supervisor peskin: and i'm still a no. >> clerk: there are seven ayes and four noes with. >> president walton: motion to amend carries by 7-4. madam clerk, please call roll for the second amendment. >> clerk: on the second amendment to item 39, [roll call]

>> president walton: by a vote of 6-5 the motion to amend carries. madam clerk, would you please call the role on the amended items. >> clerk: on the item 39 as amended, [roll call]

>> clerk: there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: thank you, without objection, this amended ordinance is passed on first reading unanimously. madam clerk, please call items 40 to 42 together. >> clerk: items 40 through 42 were considered by the rules committee at a regular meeting on monday, july 12th, 2021. items 40 through forty-two are three ordinances that amend different sections of the administrative code. item 40 was recommended as amended with the same title. it's an ordinance to amend the administrative code to establish a special fund for grants to nonprofit agencies to establish and operate food empowerment markets and designating the human services agency to administer and establish rules for the

program. item 41 was recommended as a committee report. it directs the department of public health to report by annually on food security and equity with input from other departments. and item 42 was recommended as amended with a new title. it's an ordinance to amend the administrative code to reauthorize the food security task force and to extended sunset date from july 21st, 2021, to july 21st, 2026, assisting with the department of public health food security and equity report and, mr. president, pursuant to board rule 2.21, specifically item 42 requires a vote because this particular board requires task force sunset dates not to exceed three years and this particular item, item forty-two authorizes five years and therefore the three years need to be suspended pursuant to board rule 5.2 by a affirmative

votes. >> president walton: thank you so much. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, i just wanted to thank supervisor safai and especially jeff rios and also amy from my office for working on this important issue. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, president walton. first, i just want to reiterate what supervisor ronen just said. thank you so much, supervisor safai, for bringing this leadership forward on this package on addressing an issue that affects all of our districts. i, you know, want to thank you for working so closely with food security taskforce and all

the advocates who for years have been raising the issue of hungry people in our city, hungry children in our school district, and all of the things that folks need to survive and thrive in our city. your staff person jafrias morris who has been working with people. with that, i would like to propose a couple of friendly amendments to the legislation. the first one is on item 40, so on page 2, line 9 through 10, the facility has a community kitchen. i would like to add on site or is in partnership with an offsite community kitchen and the reason for that is as we all know, it's really difficult to have a fully compliant kitchen in some districts more than others and so this opens

up the possibility for la cocina or another like organization to provide that partnership to fulfill that role. on page 2 line item 41 is shall request the data from the san francisco unified school district and the san francisco housing authority instead of may because d.p.h. should ask them. now, if we can compel them to provide the data. both the school district and the housing authority are very important agencies in terms of providing the infrastructure for food security for so many of our residents in san francisco. so thank you so much, again, supervisor safai. this is very important. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor melgar. i accept those amendments.

thank you so much for catching those. they help clarify. the commercial kitchen point is very well taken and you know first-hand how difficult it is to find that space and i'm happy with adding a shall to the housing authority. whether he'll respond we'll see, but i believe they will. i just want to thank first off so many people from the community that have dedicated their careers thinking about those of us in our city on a daily basis over the last sixteen years. these three ordinances that we have in front of us today are really the first major step in beginning to think about how we

reimagine distributing food and provide food related services to our most vulnerable residents. the food security task force that both of you mentioned have done tremendous work over the years and it goes all the way back to supervisor sophie maxwell who started this process and really laid the foundation for the work that we're doing here today. we've been meeting monthly with the department of public health and if anything was highlighted during covid impacts our residents. i never would have thought that i would be sitting there watching thousands of people in line at balboa high school. the parking lot at james denman all the way wrapped around the football field going back to the auditorium and people that we weren't used to seeing in line that we didn't expect to

be and experience this food insecurity, we're dealing with it on a daily basis and i know every single one of us here. we heard from our mayor how her own personal experiences impacted how she wants to approach reimagining and so i really appreciate her staff and sophia kitler. we worked directly with her. and as both of you mentioned on my team has been leading this fight and building on the work she has done and we really want to remove the red tape and the difficulty that many people of the but as we begin to recover from covid-19 and the pandemic, i think that the work that the food security task force is doing is even more important than before. so 40 and 42 and 41 are really about how we're going to work

on this process why we're reauthorizing this every year and extending it to five years and i think that was a real well taken point. i hope this passes unanimously. i hope that we continue to prioritize this and the idea that people will approach food insecurity with dignity and it really will be about food empowerment. people not having to wait in line. people that will be able to come in and choose a food that's culturally responsive to their needs and do it in such a way that has dignity. as supervisor ronen and i have worked on the right to recover and thank you for your leadership on that, we really have felt on top of that the

food insecurity first-hand in district eleven. one in five of the new cal fresh recipients come from my district and it's composed of people of color, seniors, immigrants, undocumented members that were not afforded the luxury to work from home that were put out of work that could have access to healthy foods many of our employees in the service industry and this hit them in a dramatic way. as a result, food insecurity really hit home for us on a daily basis. we have over ten different food pantries. so trouble by those lines and witnessing how people were approaching this, we thought

that it would be important to reimagine this conversation. i want to also recognize the work that the excelsior strong, food hub, and the mission food hub, the work that they have done in this process. and how we're going to go from food insecurity to food sovereignty. our food empowerment markets will be funded. we will have this. the r.f.p. that's going out. we'll continue the work we're doing around food insecurity with many of the great organizations and they will be able to choose the food of their choice. we've met with the san

francisco marin food bank. these new leadership they were on board as i've said before, our mayor's on board. the department of human services agency susie smith and her team. so we're really excited about this opportunity. along with, as i said, some of the other ordinances, other items up here by extending the date and then the by annual report where we're going to get more information about how this is the department of public health is working and then they will provide those updates for us so i thank you colleagues, i hope we can have your unanimous support. i also want to recognize president walton for his early endorsement of this. i know he deals with a lot of issues on this. our food empowerment market initially continue plates setting these issues up without

any constraints on expanding them to other parts of san francisco. thank you supervisor ronen, supervisor mandelman, thank you, again for your continued support and look forward to passing this today. thank you for giving me the opportunity to say some extra words after that long debate. >> president walton: thank you for those extra words, supervisor safai. madam clerk, can we first do a roll call. >> supervisor safai: oh, wait i'm sorry and also supervisor peskin for his endorsement and cosponsorship. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor safai. madam clerk, can we call the roll for the motion to amend item forty-first. >> clerk: okay. on the motion to amend item 40, that was made, mr. president by supervisor melgar and seconded by supervisor safai. okay. on the motion to item 40, [roll call]

there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: thank you so much. the amendment passes unanimously. madam clerk, unless we have any objections to the second amendment that was made by supervisor melgar and seconded by supervisor safai on item 41, we should be able to do the same house same call, correct. >> clerk: without objection. >> president walton: no objection. this amendment passes unanimously. and, madam clerk, would you

please call the role for items 40 through 42. >> clerk: on items 40 through 42. >> president walton: as amended. >> clerk: thank you, mr. president. [roll call] there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: thank you. and without objection, these ordinances are passed unanimously. madam clerk, we are now at roll call for introductions. >> clerk: okay. supervisor haney first up to introduce new business.

>> supervisor haney: all right. quickly. i just have one item. colleagues, today, i'm introducing a resolution condemning the decision by the u.s. anti-doping agency to suspend chicari richardson and bar her from taking part in the tokyo olympics. last month, she won the 100 meters at the u.s. olympic trials in oregon qualifying her for the 2021 u.s. olympics. we later learned that she had run this race days after the death of her mother. after testing positive for marijuana use, the u.s. a.d.a. levied a one-month suspension and ended her path to the tokyo olympics next month. despite no scientific evidence cannabis is a performing drug, despite to legalize marijuana across the world and despite other sports needs removing penalties the usda continues to

treat its the resolution i'm introducing today condemns the decision to bar chicari richardson and the us anti-doping agency to change the policies on cannabis. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor haney. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor. supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: commit. >> clerk: thank you. supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: thank you, colleagues. so i wanted to tell you that a few months ago, i had asked the budget and legislative analyst office to do some analysis of how women were fairing during the pandemic in terms of women owned businesses. and i'm happy to report that they came out with a really great report which i'm going to

share with you all so that you can read it. this is an issue that's near and dear to my heart per those of you who know me well, you have probably heard the story of my abuelita, my grandmother, my mother's mother who had a second education and was born and raised in rural el salvador and was one of seven daughters who went to work at age 10 when her father died. she went to work for a palestinian christian family who taught her how to count in arabic and how to have inventory and do all of the things that later set her up to be able to put all of her kids through university including my mother with a 2nd grade education because she was an amazing businesswoman and of course they all became communist and fought in the

revolution in el salvador, but it just did for my family so much because it transformed our lives and that's the power of small businesses for women, for immigrants, for people who cannot easily go work for someone else, but have the drive and the creativity and the entrepreneurship to do it for themselves. so what this report found is what we anecdotedly all know. so in san francisco, i want to say, first of all, thank you so much to rashika is awani and fred russo for some amazing work. so the first thing that they found is that the data that we have in san francisco is not very good and so i will tell you, colleagues, that i do intend to do something about that through legislation. we after the passage of prop 209 kind of exempted ourselves

from keeping the data. it was we can't go down this path anywhere, so we're not going to even ask this question. so any creative solutions to rectifying inequities in our contract how we view san francisco needs to start with a bottom line and we just don't have a lot of it. the second thing that we found is that 37% of small businesses in san francisco are owned by women and that is amazing but when ppp loans came out, businesses owned by women were able to get those loans and there's special reasons for that. many of them are smaller. many of them are not banked as robustly as other businesses. they tend to have fewer employees, but that is what we found. the second thing that we found is that of the ones, of the 25% of women owned businesses that were able to get p.p.p. loans,

they got about half the amount that male-owned businesses got. not only did they get less, they also got less money. i am happy to report that for our own efforts from the city of san francisco through oewd grants and loans, we were able to do quite a bit better. about 50% of the money that we put out during the pandemic went to women owned businesses and then when you look at african american owned businesses, latino owned businesses, we did better overall than the federal government. however, you know, our contribution is just so much smaller. we just don't have the kind of resources that the federal government has. and so, over the next few months, i do intend to per sue these findings and look at ways where we can collect data to create good public policy and continue to work with oewd to make sure that robust technical

assistance and access to capital for women owned business particularly immigrant women and women of color, african american women, latino women, asian women, have access to what they need to thrive post pandemic and create a bright future for themselves and their families. thank you. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor melgar. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues. today, i'm introducing a piece of legislation that hopefully all eleven of us can agree on that we are lovingly calling the love your laundromat legislation. this is a piece of legislation that's actually the result of about a year's worth of research in my office and that

research shows what i think we have seen which is that laundro mats tend to be in the city and serve lower income communities and less likely to have in-home washers and driers kind of what you'd expect. and as we learned last september, when a tons of bubbles was facing displacement by their landlord, the availability of cleaning services is without a doubt a social and racial equity issue. it's an issue that impacts seniors and people with disabilities and everybody in the neighborhood they are a key piece of social infrastructure and the presiptous drop in the number of laundromats in the

city is something we should take note about. according to the data from the san francisco p.u.c., 84 of the city's listen since only two thousand thirteen. that's about one in three laundrmats closing down on our watch. through little analysis through cause and effect, i think we need to take some action. in 2019 alone before the pandemic 21 in speaking with operators of laundromats this is not because of concern including members of the central city s.r.o. collaborative, the impacts are deeply felt when access to a laundro mat moves by even a few blocks or disappears all together. the legislation i'm introducing would adopt a familiar

mechanism for the next three years and we can evaluate it at the end of that period. it would also prohibit accessory dwelling units unless that laundry service is placed in-kind and accessible to tenants. we only have that degree of control over our local a.d.u. program as our discretion has otherwise been pre-empted by certain state laws. just an equity and planning issue. this is also about appreciating the community serving businesses that make our neighborhoods complete and walkable. laundromats and i hope that reflects the intangible value.

i want to thank the race and equity. the central city s.r.o. collaborative. my staff, and early cosponsors, seven of you so far in addition to myself, supervisor chan, preston, roanen, haney, and mar. next, colleagues, i'm introducing a letter of inquiry to the department of building inspection as to why they continue to accept, process, and issue permits under the office of permit expediter rodrigo santez and has it is nothing short of jarring if not shocking that his name keeps crossing our desks and even just appeared before the planning commission. thankfully the planning commission did not approve the retroactive permit and i want

to know why. the rest i will submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam clerk, i'm a little speechless and stunned by the last revelation from my colleague, supervisor peskin, but i today am introducing a resolution to reinstate urging the sfmta to reinstate all transit lines and restore precovid service hours fully by december 31st, 2021, by the end of this year and calling on the sfmta to release a written plan and to have them release that plan by the end of august. the resolution comes on the heals of the announcement that many of you probably have heard last week on thursday from the m.t.c. regarding the release of

another round of federal money including hundreds of millions of dollars the agency has already receiving. once sfmta has received the latest funds from the american rescue plan, they will have received a total of $1.1 billion in federal money during the covid pandemic and even with over $700 million in unanticipated covid relief funds, the city's buses and trains are operating well beneath full capacity and it's unclear if and when the system will return to prepandemic levels. the m.t.a. continues to lack a public plan and service hours to prepandemic levels and i remain concerned with this lack

of clarity by the sfmta and lack of transparency with the public especially with respect to the near the approximately dozen suspended lines including the 21, the 31, and the 6 lines. on those issuings, but it is my hope that we can all agree that as the economy is re-opening in our city, that service and restoration of public transit must increase to match the increasing demand by riders. what is clear is car trips are coming back faster and we should be really accelerating the restoration of muni service

to ensure when people are ready to make trips and if we don't do that, it could lead to permanent. even with the massive federal investment that i described last week. m.t.a. has not presented a plan or even their metrics when many of the neighborhood lines, the community lines will return. some are concerned to this may be reflect a longer term desire and potentially eliminate service. i have called a hearing around the defacto abandonment of lines. there is i think a very serious concern whether the longer term goal is to many of you

colleagues have spoken to previously is impacted by the loss of many of our community lines. i also am just really concerned that the process for bringing back muni lines will be through one off conversations where our transit agency is responding to the loudest voices in the room or the loudest groups and through back door conversations and deals. that's kind of what's happening right now with 31 balboa. it's wonderful that director tomlin has heard the community cries to bring back that line and that's great there's finally some engagement with activists and, of course, we want that line back. but why is this even a discussion. why do residents have to hold protests to bring a key public

transit line back especially in light of the funds that we have received from the federal government. all of these lines should be back. many should have been back already, but alternate minimum by the end of the year, they should all be back. if there's a desire to look at these long-term to have a discussion we have had in this city previously under different leadership. let's have it through a community process, but let's not have it while peoples' lines are suspended when they don't need to be. so i look forward to the hearing on this resolution. my hope is this can be combined with the hearing on defacto root abandonment and whether that needs to come through this board or not that we currently have scheduled. if there are barriers to restoring service, let's overcome those together. but what i'm seeing is constantly changing excuses for why we do not have our pre-pandemic levels of service and why we continue to have a

dozen lines suspended in san francisco. our operators assure us they are ready to drive. our riders are ready to ride and with the latest massive federal investment, the time has come to restore our muni lines and return zillionwide pandemic service hours and at a minimum, residents of san francisco, a transit first city by charter deserve a written commitment from m.t.a. as to when all of these lines will be coming back. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues, today i'm introducing a resolution to the california legislature to extend privacy and safety measures to guarantee that all residents petitioning the california superior court in order to change their name or gender marker can do so under seals from public viewing.

the california legislature has taken important but incomplete steps to help ensure the privacy and safety of transgender and nonbinary residents underscoring the need for some measures to be expanded. in 2017, the state legislature passed sb179. the california gender recognition act which among other things eliminated the requirement that transgender or nonbinary residents exposed confidential and personal medical information within their written petition to the superior court for in order to change their name and gender marker. despite these initial remedies, tangible danger still exists for many california residents includes a petition. their home address, their date and place of birth and the resulting court order all remain public documents that can be easily located through online searches of court dockets. the discovery of status as

nonbinary can and still does lead to deadly consequences. violence against transpeople remains a serious ongoing epidemic in the united states. this resolution urges the governor and our state representatives which would feel obligations and related documents filed in any california superior court for a change in name to match the petitioner's authentic identity. doing so is essential to guaranteeing the privacy and presenting unnecessary harm and nonbinary residents throughout san francisco and california. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, we've had a lot of conversation about small businesses today. i am introducing a new piece of legislation. thank you for the idea and the work, supervisor ronen and others. i know we've had a number of

conversations about this, but this past year as many of you know has nearly destroyed many of our small businesses. we have come together, thank you, supervisor preston for your leadership around tenants, residential tenants but many of our commercial tenants small business in particular are still hurting. there was a reprieve given at the state level that allows for commercial eviction moratoriums to be extended to the end of september, but we know from our early analysis somewhere between $100 million and $400 million have piled up in debt. we need to be thinking about this and we need to act. it will be very targeted. it will be targeted to

businesses with gross receipts at $2.5 million or less. 50 employees or less. no formula retail businesses that have been around for five years or more. but we have to do something to ensure that we preserve the fabric of what makes san francisco special so what i'm proposing today is the creation of a fund where in conversations with the mayor, we really look forward to working with her on this fund. we've talked numbers around $25 million. just if you were to break that down in chunks it would help over a thousand businesses. the average small business is somewhere between 10 to 20 employees. you're talking about 10 to 20,000 workers that would be impacted that could be safe. so we will continue this

conversation. we're just introducing the fund today. we're not asking any supplemental budget requests. so many as supervisor preston and i talked about, we're talking about many of the businesses had no option of remaining open. they literally were forced to shut down by government order during this, and it was the right decision. but nail salons, barbershops, gyms, tattoo parlors, all different types of salons and bars and small businesses and cafes that could not survive on take-out only. and as we look to help and the mayor's office has an office of economic workforce development and talk about zero interest loans, that would help these businesses. we're talking about moving in to the realm of pure grants and sizing those at around $25,000

to $35,000. we think it's the right thing to do now. have this conversation now and put some money into that fund in september. so i look forward to working with the mayor and all of you colleagues that have expressed your early interest in supporting the creation of this fund. so anyway. secondarily, i have an in memore upand that is for, i'm reading this on behalf of my staffer lauren chung who recently lost her grandmother and she died at the great age of 96. she lived a wonderful life. i'm just going to quickly read her in memorium to pay respect to her. rose fun chung was born october 4th in the fooejy islands. she then moved back to china where the fung family was

originally from in her teenage years. due to the tumultuous times. rose later attended university at the national southwest association university for a degree in sociology during world war ii in 1945, she met her husband poa chin chung. they got married shortly after the war ended and later moved to taiwan. rose and poa chung had four children. on march 8th, 1956, her husband's life was cut short in the line of duty. rose then left to raise her four children ages 9, 6, 4, and 1 at that time. rose and her children settled in tai pei where she took on a

job in the air force working for her family. all four children later graduated from university and studied overseas. in 1981, she immigrated to the united states in contrast to the early parts of her life, she would live a quiet life in orange county dedicated to her family and especially her grandchildren. on saturday morning, june 12th, this past month, rose passed away due to organ failure caused by aging. she was 96 years old as i said and she's survived by her son, his wife mandy her daughter vivian and her husband bill, her son, her other son, all of whom she loved dearly. and lastly, colleagues, i just want to say a special thanks today to acknowledge dan de

kozio. and dan was a native -- dan is a native san franciscan born and raised in san francisco in knowy valley and burlingame. dan grew up with a great passion for san francisco. and retired as a fire captain and fire prevention. dan joined the san francisco fingerprint in the 83 recruit academy in 1991. he began his career at truck 19 and engine 21, truck 6, engine 44 and truck 1 where he was recognized in '93 as the chief's letter for accomodation and outstanding service. dan then went on to work across the unique and diverse neighborhoods of our city. with this expansion at san francisco international airport, with the expansion of international airport, dan was assigned to the international

fire prevention there as it was ground breaking. he went on to represent the fire department and many developments as strategic projects including sfo's air tran, transformation of terminal two and the new air traffic control tower. dan was promoted to lieutenant and then to captain and in 2015, dan was appointed to the post of fire marshal. during his tenure as fire marshal, fire department leadership and command staff, the fire commission and the entire bureau. so on behalf of our board and supervisors and district 11, i'd like to thank dan decasio and the city and county of san francisco. and lastly, colleagues, i would be remiss on the work that

we've done on the legislation that i introduced today that we talked about food empowerment and her tremendous work in the bayview community and their community and the work that they've done with food empowerment. thank you, colleagues. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor stefani. am. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, for two years now, i have had deep reservations about the pretrial safety and appearance rates and whether those metrics adhere to national standards. i've been asking for information about the success of individuals during the entire life cycle of the pretrial release for awhile now. i voted against the pretrial diversion contract extension twice now because i never received satisfactory answers to my questions. the information i've been asking for is finally public and has validated my suspicions

about reported safety ratings. more than half of individuals on pretrial release are re-arrested or fail to appear. this study also validates the experiences of people in san francisco who are extremely concerned about crime but are constantly told there's nothing to worry about. 55% of those on pretrial release reoffend before trial. more troubling, individuals with the most serious and violent offenses reoffend 74% of the time. i want to be very clear, neither the sheriff nor the pretrial diversion project make the decision about who is released after their arrest. that decision relies with the district attorney and the public defender's officement these agencies pretrial then must provide supervision and programming while someone awaits trial or resolution of their case short of trial. we are contracting with these

agencies to make certain that their efforts are helping those on pretrial release and also keeping the public safe. what i find so alarming and frustrate sergeant that the pretrial diversion project has had this vgs information and refuse to share this information when i asked for it. in fact, this very report has been in draft since march. pretrial has managed this program for 40 years. they conduct the public safety assessment of every individual in pretrial release and they knew what the situation was. it is unacceptable for a contractor in any capacity to come to this body and request tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding while knowingly withholding critical information and then to go on to say that san francisco can help people show up to support and not reoffend and apply for

jobs and schooling. yes, we know that. that is what we are paying you to do. the p.s.a. or the public safety assessment as it's called rates that rating for serious and violent offenders is supposed to act as a warning and it's being ignored by some judges who release the individuals despite the risk and they go on to commit other offenses, sometimes violent offenses. how frequently individuals are rearrested for serious or violent offenses while awaiting trial is not something to take lightly. it's extremely misleading and dangerous to not provide the entire picture. i want to be very clear about this. this is not to say that the goals of pretrial diversion are unworthy. of course they are, but we need to know what is working and what is not and what needs to be done better to keep the public safe and to help their

clients succeed. in light of this report, today, i'm calling on the city attorney's office to draft legislation that would one, require pretrial to report pretrial safety and appearance rates for the entire duration of the pretrial release period including breakdowns by p.s.a. score and release type and to include out of county new offenses. require reports every time a judge releases an individual even when the p.s.a. which is done by pretrial recommends that the judge not release an individual and then a report on what happens as a result of that release. empower the sheriff's office to issue recommendations on whether or not release to their for more intervention to help people keep their court dates and adopt recommendations to address bias in the p.s.a. i

believe firmly in the pretrial release. i fought for funds for them and when i found out that we weren't getting the exact picture of what was going i started pressing and pressing and i finally have the answers. we absolutely must find alternatives to incarceration which is devastating to communities and comes at an incredible defense. however, meaningful reforms demands transparency, keeping something like this secret or not reporting in a way that we get the full picture destroys public trust in government and hurts the very cause that pretrial seeks to champions. i look forward to working with the city attorney's office to draft this legislation and the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor stefani. supervisor walton. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. today, i am formally

introducing legislation along with colleagues supervisor safai, haney, to expand the city's administrative code. prohibiting city travel and contracting in states that allow discrimination to include voter suppression laws such as the one that passed in the state of georgia on march 25th. across the country efforts to restrict the right to vote continue with multiple bills moving through many state legislatures to become law. between january 1st and may 14th, 2021, at least 14 states enacted 22 new laws that restrict access to the vote including making it harder for americans to register to vote, stay on the voter roles and vote as compared to existing state laws. there are at least 61 bills with restrictive provisions moving through 18 state legislatures and specifically thirty-one have passed at least

one chamber. in 2021 alone, lawmakers across the country have introduced at least 389 restrictive bills and 48 states and the 2021 legislative sessions. san francisco's current chapter 12x code prohibits city travel and contracting in states that allowed discrimination in lgbtq plus individuals and states with anti-abortion laws. this legislation will expand that to include laws that restrict voters from exercising their right to vote. all of these states proposed in passing voter restrictions are making it clear they do not want black people and people of color and people of low income communities throughout the country to exercise their rights to vote. throughout history, there have been reoccurring efforts to restrict votes of people of color and women in this country. these efforts to restrict the

vote in 2021 are a threat to democracy as a whole. our amendments to chapter 12x will include laws that do not allow same-day voting at a polling place if a voter goes to the wrong polling location. laws that represent voters without photo i.d.s from satisfying in identification requirement in some other manner such as submitting a signed and sworn affidavit. laws prohibiting local election departments from mailing absentee ballots or absentee ballot applications to all voters. laws that ban prepaid postage for mail-in ballots. laws that prohibit extension of voting hours if election problems arise. under this legislation, the city will not be required or paid for any of its employees or offices to travel to a state on the list. as a city, we should not be putting city funds towards travel to states that actively

create laws to make it harder to vote or for conducting business with these states. by adopting these amendments, san francisco is taking a stance against voting restrictions in this country. i'd like to thank deputy city attorney tom owens for drafting this ordinance. my chief of staff nelly g. and our former intern elizabeth gordie howe for researching, existing, and pending voter restriction laws in every state as well as my cosponsor for joining me and requesting this legislation. i'm also introducing a resolution along with supervisor haney in support of ab990, the family unity bill introduced by assembly member miguel santiago of los angeles to preserve family bonds during incarceration and establish personal visits for incarcerated people as a right, rather than a privilege. and to ensure that revoking the

visitation right is only limited to special circumstances. currently, visits are treated as privilege rather than a right and can be denied for disciplinary reasons unrelated to visiting or for simple mistakes on paperwork. family members can be excluded based on arrests or conviction histories unrelated to securities. which further divides families who live in communities and impacted by mass incarceration. visits can also be very expensive and time consuming. as many people in california are incarcerated hundreds of miles away from their homes and after taking long costly trips to visit a loved one, visitors often face long waiting times that use up limited visiting hours. or are turned away or removed for petty reasons such as wearing a v-neck t-shirt or having inadequate documentation

or holding hands too long. during the past year, with the covid-19 pandemic, in-person family visits were completely stopped and phone communications have been limited. family members of loved ones who got seriously sick in custody often received no notice or opportunity to call or a visit. ab990 will establish visitation as a right and address the current problems with limited visits to encarson rated people by removing barriers to visits in order to ensure families remain connected. today, colleagues, i have two in memoriums. the first one is for ms. ramon andrea fischer known as "mona." mona was born to raymondy von

fischer where she lived most of he adult life. mona graduated from balboa high school and was a teenager. when others were riding bikes, mona was driving and using her sister's i.d. to have a good time at nightclubs. in 1995, she married eddie travis from their union and they had two sons. lucky and raymond. and in 2001, she married edward burns who passed away in april, 2012. mona was a loving mother and daughter. she was a loyal sister, friend, and confidant to many. she was the god mother to so many had that family has lost count. she lost her nieces and nephews as if they were her own. mona worked as a ups driver and

bridge toll collector for the san francisco bridge. she loved the daily interaction with people. unfortunately, due to hopkins lymphoma she was forced to stop working. she was a fighter both figurative and literally and wasn't going to let the disease beat her. she was reminded daily of what her friend once said "you can't win if you don't fight." so she fought on and kept winning. she leaves to cherish her memory, her father, raymond fischer the first. dog, little man. her children. nadine yvonne, raymond the second. jamar and e epiphany.

ava may broaden shepherd. the youngest of 15 children was born january 5th, 1931. as a young woman, ava may inspired to become a teacher but fate intervened and she started her family of eight children. being strong and courageous with hopes of a better life for her family, she left detroit, michigan, to relocate in beluxy, mississippi, and later ventured to san francisco. throughout her life she had developed throughout a staunch humanitarian. ava may's experience was a great expectation. the importance and seriousness of her job was as important as any politician. she couldn't wait until election day as she encouraged all to get out and vote and she would be at the polls from sun up to sun down.

on a regular basis, she would assist with feeding those in need at a local food bank. she worked alongside san francisco's renown community activist who fought for disenfranchised in san francisco. attending protests at city hall, making posters for marchs, prayer vigils. she even used her talent to sew quilts. even though eva may didn't get teaching credentials, many that knew her learned many lessons. she exemplified unwaivering strengths. she leaves to cherish seven children, rose marie, edward lloyd, jacquelyn uetta, lori k and anthony dwayne. a host of grandchildren and other families. the rest i submit. >> clerk: thank you, mr.

president. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, madam clerk. so, colleagues, in april, governor gavin newsome announcement point in times that the state will stop issuing fracturing by 2024, and, this week, the california, the news is that california has already denied 21 fracturing permits. so here i am introducing an ordinance that sets san francisco out -- gets san francisco out of the fossil fuel business permanently by striking the planning code article 12 from our planning -- by striking the planning code article 12. article 12 of the planning code set zoning controls and permitting frame work for land use activities associated with oil and gas exploration, development and processing. it also create over districts to regulate heavy industrial oil and gas support in processing facilities. so in san francisco, we pride

ourselves as an environmental leader and while most of us may not have realized this section existed in the planning code and this section of our code may have set collecting dust for decades. it is important that in the face of the catastrophic impact of climate change, we make this long needed commitment to prohibit any task and oil business activities in san francisco and on our public lands. meanwhile, i'm also a proud cosponsor to supervisor preston's resolution urging the sfmta for restoration service. really, colleagues, you know, we're having a debate and we've been having debates around great highway and jfk and making changes to the sections of our city, it is now then it would be without the muni service restoration, it becomes a catch 22 scenario for the

richmond. closing roads, changing the dynamics on our roads permanently but also without public transit. where do our people go, how do they get to places. so i look forward to urging sfmta to do the right thing to restore muni services 100% this year. thank you. the rest i'll submit. >> clerk: thank you, supervisor chan. seeing no names on the roster. mr. president, that concludes the introduction of new business. >> president walton: thank you, colleagues. thank you, clerk. we are now at public comment. >> clerk: at this time, the board of supervisors welcomes your general public comment. the best way to provide public comment is to listen from your touch phone. you will be in live sync to listen to the proceeding and provide your public comment. the telephone number is (415) 655-0001 and when you hear the prompt enter the meeting i.d. 146 408 6781.

press pound twice and you'll have joined the meeting. you'll hear the discussion, you'll be muted and in the listening queue. to be added to the speaker's queue to provide comment, press star 3 and when it is your turn, the system will send you a prompt. listen for you have been unmuted and just begin speaking your comments. each caller will have up to two minutes to provide their comment. you may speak to the items that have not been to committee but are on this agenda as items 45 through 49. you may also speak to the subject matters that are within the jurisdiction of the board, but do not appear on this agenda. all other agenda content has had its public comment fulfilled. if you are multi-tasking and the line is unattended, when it is your turn after waiting a few moments, we will move to the next caller. we do try to circle back to the unattended lines, we will apologize now if we miss

someone. as stated earlier, we had interpreters on stand by today. we will have them from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 next tuesday. so operations, let's hear from the first caller, please. >> linda chapman. i have to say how much i admire the consideration that i heard for shared spaces both at this meeting and at land use and i hope the consideration equally robust will go to what just happened in the condo in florida because that situation has ramifications in all directions in san francisco. i've been talking about corruption at the planning department that actually cooperated with hiding the earthquake damage to our concrete high-rise in san francisco chafs the same height as that building and have fewer

units. i'm going to have to put that aside for the moment. also, i'm talking to the fact there was nowhere to turn to complain about this or seek resolution. i want you to realize that even without earthquake even without a planning department, our buildings are exposed to the same kind of risk that happened in florida and we don't have the kind of procedures that they obviously have. they require inspection and recertification, rebuildings that are 40 years old. we don't have that. we didn't even have a requirement that buildings be investigated by structural engineers after the earthquakes. i learned from dealing with four different structural engineers also that we have defective concrete in our buildings because the recipe

for concrete was lost with the romans and until well into the 1930s, there was -- they were doing experiments, in essence, they were used beach sand full of salt. you heard about the salt. ours was corroding because it was made with salt to begin with. any building that is made of concrete and steal is going to be deteriorating. >> clerk: thank you, +chapman. thank you. my apologies for interrupting you. each caller will have up to two minutes. that's the amount of time we're setting the timer for today. i will just also state before we hear from the next caller that if you are in line to make any comments on the city's budget, that item is not agenda content for public comment today as it has had its public comment requirement fulfilled at the committee level. i shared this at the outset

just to try to minimize any frustration that will occur when i have to interrupt speakers. so if you are speaking on the budget, we will mute you and go to the next caller. all right. we have eight callers who are listening and five who are in the cue. operations, let's please hear from the next caller. >> good afternoon, madam clerk, president walton, board of supervisors. this is gilbert chriswall of district 8. thank you, supervisor preston for your roll call for introduction on transit. you seem to be the only supervisor that cares about transit. we have more supervisors concerned about restaurants, small businesses, and corporations getting business loans, grants, and free money from the city, but we don't have free muni for people that

are senior, disabled, or poor. we need to restore muni lines that have been cut like the 31, 28, 22, 45, 54, and 63. these are neighborhoods that are poor and neglected. why are these bus lines not restored? we need to open the central subway. muni is not transparent. nobody holds muni accountable for anything what's going on. what's wrong? why does it take me an hour to go from the castro to chinatown? why does it take me an hour to go from the castro to north beach? why is it that a bus comes every 5 minutes and you can't get a bus line through the

tenderloin? i don't understand this. thank you for supervisor preston for your passion for transit and i'm all in for dean protest ton. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chriswell. operations, next caller, please. >> good evening. my name is mark and i'm calling about item number 45. i've been a security officer for dignity health for three years now. security officers across dignity health have suffered immeasurable inequalities. security officers suffered constant harassment, intimidation by upper management. work place violence, most staffing levels, lack of proper protective equipment and resources ask continuous covid expow hers and unequal benefits and pay. for example, the janitorial staff get paid about $6 more

per hour than the security officer dealing with the inmrux in the behavioral facilities. you may have seen those touching human kindness commercials. you would also know about our mission which refers to our commitment to social justice and to might for the common good, but management does not up this decision. could only start with getting the respect, equality, and social justice from dignity health management throughout their facilities. dignity health values state compassion, inclusion, integrity, excellence, and collaboration. this is all we as security officers are asking for. dignity health claims to be committed to these core values.

several00 security officers are asking for compassion and inclusion in the same benefits to other workers. we deserve collaboration to work with our employer and give and receive social justice. today, i'm asking the board to unanimously adopt the resolution supporting the right of security officers to have their social justice. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments sir. operations, let's hear from the next caller. we have eight listeners and four callers in the queue. if you're one of the eight, please press star 3 now, that will get you in to the speakers' queue. welcome, caller. >> hello. i didn't have a comment as much as a question. can we get more information for the public for muni on what day and time that meeting will take

place and in which forum? thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. i will check on that information for you and hopefully get that to you in short order. operations, let's go to the next caller. >> good evening. i'm calling regarding item number 45. i'm a member of s.c.i.u.h.w. and i'm calling to express my support for the dignity health security officers. i'm asking the board to call on

management to expect the will of these officers or at the very least allow them to hold a free and fair election so that they can vote on their own to form their union within s.c.i.u.u.h.w. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. all right. welcome, caller. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> hi. i'm an organizer with stiuhealth care organizers. i'm also a resident of district 7. i'm calling to express support for item number thir 5 and the hundreds of security officers

that health facility statewide. the majority of officers at dignity including st. francis and st. marys here in san francisco have signed union authorization cards. officers have experienced dangerous working conditions including a lack of personal protective equipment and adequate staffing levels and sufficient nonexisting safety protocols. officers have raised concerns that they have been placed at extreme risk of work place violence and general disregard for their well being and despite working side by side, they paid more for their health care and they're fighting for a greater voice over their wages, benefits in terms of their condition and employment. management, however, has not recognizing these security officers as members of sciuuhw and has not allowed them to hold a free and fair election

and i urge the entire board to vote unanimously in support of item number 35 and call on management to respect the will of the workers by recognizing their union or by allowing them to have a free and fair vote to decipher themselves. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. operations, before we hear from the next caller, there is an anonymous line that we've gone to four times and so if you are not pressing star 3, we will not be able to unmute you. okay. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> welcome, caller. all right. let's go to the next caller, please. >> hi i'm an sciuuwh member.

and i'd like to also call in support of the common to support security officers and i'd like to the supervisors who vote unanimously on item number 45. thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. all right. we have about eight listeners and four callers in the queue. welcome to the next caller. >> yes. hello. my name is dion youngblood and i am an employee at dignity health hospital and being here at the hospital with our leadership, we have been faced with challenges on a day-to-day basis. i can go over a few of them, discrimination, harassment,

favoritism, disparity, and i would like to -- you have a right on some of those on discrimination, we have had an african american young lady who applied for the position. she was advised that she couldn't retrieve the full time position because she had dread locks. and then we also had ppe where director advised us we're not allowed to wear the ppe gear. it got so bad that our nurses did a strike and the doctors were complaining. our director, our president of the hospital went down to one of our units and noticed that our officers did not have any protective gear on. went to our director and stated that we need to wear gear. from that point on, our director told us if we wanted

to wear the gear, we will be written up if we don't wear it. first, in the beginning, we will be written up if we did wear it. so officers are challenged everyday here at dignity health hospital and we need support and we ask that you got the board recognized us as union members. we really need to support, we really need help at our dignity health hospitals. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. we can. >> yes. my name is lamont wright and i worked both at the san francisco kaiser as a shop stuart and at dignity health

systems and just knowing even with representation to meet the challenges of the day-to-day of the employee i know it is critical that we support item 45 for the security officers at dignity. we are in a new era, ladies and gentlemen, we are in an era where we are constantly being replaced by machines so why it makes sense to me that we as human beings that we are able to represent ourselves and our own interests and that is all i have to say. thank you so much. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, sir. anonymous, we see you've entered the queue, we will try your line one more time. >> hello. can you hear me?

>> clerk: yes. we can. >> thank you. seems to be a little problem. you'll give me a thirty-second warning. >> clerk: happy to. you'll hear the bell. >> thank you. a chime. wonderful. is that a chime. good. peter warfield, executive director of library user's association we can be reached at libraryusers2004@yahoo.com. and p.o. box 17044 san francisco, california. i have made comments during the budget about a certain issue and i have to say that the same issue i think actually affects a much broader kind of set of problems. and that is during covid, we had a massive withdrawal of government away from the public and a massive increase almost a mote with a drawbridge that separated the government from

folks who were used to using their familiar ways of reaching the government and suddenly were cut off dramatically. how were they cut off? they were cut off by not being able to show up at city hall to do any kind of business they thought they were able to do. 40 hours a week they were able to previously make phone calls and expect somebody to answer, somebody from the front desk, somebody from somewhere in the office who would presumably answer. >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> all of a sudden, massively these opportunities disappeared and in some cases were replaced by suggestion. send us an e-mail if you have a question or a problem. that's wrong and a tremendous reduction of services in the people you are funding. i think you should think seriously about a law that requires same service or a notification and a process for any reduction of service

perhaps a kind of environmental impact report because otherwise you are being cheated and the public is being cheated for the funding you provide. >> clerk: operations, let's hear from the next caller, please. >> hello. thank you. my name is april crawford and i am a resident at san francisco in district 10 and a kaiser employee and also at sciuuh wshgsz member. i really want to express my support for the security officers at dignity health and ask that each and every one of you vote yes on the resolution of the support efforts of security officers at dignity health so they can form their union. again, i want to thank you for your time. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. all right. operations, do we have another caller in the queue? >> maddal clerk, that completes

the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you, operations. and, mr. president, i just want to respond to the caller, it's an m.t.a. root abandonment hearing before the government and audit oversielgt committee. typically members of the public call my office at 554-5184 and we can provide information since you needed it right away we helped out this one time. thank you, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you so much, madam clerk. and thank you to the public for public comment. seeing no other public comments, public comment is now closed. madam clerk will you call items 45 through 49. >> clerk: items 45 through 49 were introduced for adoption without motion. on first reading today. alternatively, any member may require a resolution to go to committee. >> president walton: thank you. supervisor mar.

>> supervisor mar: i'd just like to be added as a cosponsor to 45 and 47. thanks. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor mar. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: i would like to be added as a cosponsor to 47. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor chan, supervisor melgar. >> supervisor melgar: yes, i would also like to be added as a cosponsor to 45. thank you. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: 45 please. add me on. >> president walton: thank you, supervisor ronen. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: same here. cosponsor 45. >> president walton: thank you. and i don't see anyone wishing to sever any items. madam clerk, would you please call roll on 45 through 49. >> clerk: on items 45 through 49, [roll call]

>> clerk: there are eleven ayes. >> president walton: without objection, the resolutions are adopted and the motions are approved unanimously. madam clerk, do we have any imperative agenda items. >> clerk: none to report, mr. president. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. would you please present the in memoriums. >> clerk: on behalf of supervisor safai for the late mrs. rose fung chung, on behalf of supervisor walton for the late ramona "mona." shepherd.

>> president walton: is there any further business for us today? >> clerk: that completes our business for today. >> president walton: in conclusion, i leave you with this brief quote. "alone we are a drop, but together we can form an ocean." this meeting is adjourned.

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco.

we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with

barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful

murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a

request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough.

loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of

tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be

very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪♪

>> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪

and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by

the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the

context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪. >> my name is angela wilson and i'm an owner of the market i

worked at a butcher for about 10 years and became a butcher you i was a restaurant cook started in sxos and went to uc; isn't that so and opened a cafe we have produce from small farms without small butcher shops hard for small farms to survive we have a been a butcher shop since 1901 in the heights floor and the case are about from 1955 and it is only been a butcher shot not a lot of businesses if san francisco that have only been one thing. >> i'm all for vegetarians if you eat meat eat meat for quality and if we care of we're in a losing battle we need to

support butcher shops eat less we sell the chickens with the head and feet open somebody has to make money when you pay $25 for a chicken i guarantee if you go to save way half of the chicken goes in the enlarge but we started affordable housing depends on it occurred to us this is a male field people said good job even for a girl the interesting thing it is a women's field in most of world just here in united states it is that pay a man's job i'm an encountered woman and raise a son and teach i am who respect woman i consider all women's who work here to be impoverished and strong in san francisco labor is

high our cost of good ideas we seal the best good ideas the profit margin that low but everything that is a laboring and that's a challenge in the town so many people chasing money and not i can guarantee everybody this is their passion. >> i'm the - i've been cooking mile whole life this is a really, really strong presence of women heading up kitchens in the bay area it is really why i moved out here i think that we are really strong in the destroy and really off the pages kind of thing i feel like women befrp helps us to get back up i'm definitely the only female here i fell in love i love

setting up and love knowing were any food comes from i do the lamb and that's how i got here today something special to have a female here a male dominated field so i think that it is very special to have women and especially like it is going at it you know i'm a tiny girl but makes me feel good for sure. >> the sad thing the building is sold i'm renegotiating my lease the neighborhood wants us to be here with that said, this is a very difficult business it is a constant struggle to maintain freshness and deal with what we have to everyday

it is a very high labor of business but something i'm proud of if you want to get a job at affordable housing done nasal you need a good attitude and the jobs on the bottom you take care of all the produce and the fish and computer ferry terminal and work your way up employing people with a passion for this and empowering them to learn

[roll call] >> clerk: you have a quorum. before i call the first item, i'd like to announce that due to the