>> clerk: -- held on october 4, 2021. the meeting is being called to order at 4:35 p.m. members of the public who will be calling in, the number is

415-655-0001. the access code is 2480-980-2106. press pound and then pound again to be added to the line. when you're connected, you'll hear the meeting discussions, but you'll be muted and in listening mode only. when your item comes up, dial star, three to be added to the speaker line. if you dial star, three before public comment is called, you'll be added to the queue. wait for your turn to speak, and your line will be unmuted when it is your time to do so. public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker unless established by the chair. speakers asked but not required to state their names.

>> and if the office of small business will put the slide up -- >> clerk: i believe we don't have access to it tonight. >> okay. with that, we begin with the statement that the small business commission is the best place to get answers about doing business in san francisco during the local emergency. if you need assistance with small business matters, particularly at this time, you can find us on-line or via phone, and always, our services are free of charge. please note, the office of small business and personal hours have changed to tuesday through thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. we will be updating the slide to reflect these changes.

office staff are still available by phone and e-mail five days a week. before this meeting is called, i'd like to thank sfgovtv and maria pena for assisting with the public comment line today, and with that said, please call item 1. >> clerk: item 1, call to order and roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: vice president, you have a quorum.

>> thank you. i will now read the ramaytush ohlone land acknowledgement. the san francisco small business commission and office of small business staff acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their tradition, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibility as the caretakers of this land. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders, and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by establishing their sovereign rights as first people. please call item 2.

>> clerk: item 2, board of supervisors ordinance, file 21808, planning code, requirements for laundromats and on-site laundry services. this is a discussion and potential action item. the commission will discuss and may vote on possible recommendations regarding ordinance file 210808 [indiscernible] and to prohibit accessory dwelling units that reduce on-site laundry services unless replaced, affirming the planning department's determination under ceqa, and making findings of consistency with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code section 101.1 and findings of public necessarily, convenience, and welfare under planning code section 302. and today, we have lee hefner

from supervisor peskin. >> and you have the floor. >> thank you so much, commission, and commissioner zouzounis for taking up this legislation today. this legislation, on its surface, i think is a fairly straightforward tool designed to prevent the loss of laundromats in san francisco, and i just, by way of background, how we got to this point, our office, supervisor peskin's office, has been looking into the issue of laundromat closures for a couple of years now, and this was just based on the information that we were getting periodically that this or that laundromat or dry cleaner was closing down. it was our intention to look at certain use types under the planning code that are really community serving businesses, kind of backbones of the communities that they serve.

interestingly, when an incident came up last october, at the address 998 filbert, an owner had proposed to displace a laundromat called tons of bubbles on russian hill. commissioner deland chan says laundromats are vital to the community, and i think there are a lot of things that are overlooked in the conversation, but things like your hand ware stores, like your grocery store, like your laundromat, like your locksmith, that are vital for everyday life serve a very valuable purpose in

district three and across san francisco, as well. but we were looking at these businesses, and in the course of doing so, and certainly, when our research was intensified during the tons of bubbles incident last year, we started researching what they track, and interestingly, our planning department doesn't track the number of uses over time. d.b.i. doesn't track this, either. we're in conversation to come up with new tools so we can better track the numbes and different use types in our community. we actually got that information from sfpuc, and what we found in san francisco, in the past seven years, the number has decreased from nearly 300 -- 288 --

laundromats to just 200, and i think that that caused us to reinforce and understand what's going on here. the legislation before you seeks to introduce this as an ordinance issue. probably to no one's surprise, they tend to concentrate in higher density neighborhoods. they tend to be higher concentrations of lower income people. we found that laundromats disproportionately serve census tracts with more diverse racial and ethnic populations, so everything, everything that we were learning about laundromats is this is a use that we should step in to save, and again, that doing so is going to help benefit lower income

communities, more racially diverse communities, and certainly, the senior communities. when it was about tons of bubbles, we were inundated with dozens and dozens and dozens of e-mails, probably over 100 people said even if tons of bubbles closes, the next laundromat is a block over, but i'm not going to be able to do that because it's up a streep hill. in this instance, i think the c.u. was designed to be a disincentive, and to the extent that real estate speculation is driving some of these laundromats to closure, that we are apprehending that speculation before the

laundromat closes because then the property owner is going -- and landlord is going to know that they will need to make it through another public hearing before replacing that use. so it's -- and we have also put a three-year timeline on it. thank you, commission secretary birnbach, for noting in your tool that these were passed for night time entertainment use, so we're kind of appropriating that tool for use here. i actually believe the a.d.u. component of this was just addressed in legislation put forward by supervisor mandelman, who is noting this problem from a different point of view, so this might be redundant at this point.

but as authors of san francisco's a.d.u. ordinance in 2016, i think we need to make sure that we take note of some of the counter placements that displace laundromats or not. so that's my short recital, probably not that short. we're invested in this project. we intend to use the next month or so to get the word out. we're working on a public media campaign to bolster the public awareness for community necessity small businesses. looking forward to bringing this to the planning commission and thereafter to the board of supervisors.

with that, i will turn it back over to you, and thank you for the opportunity to bring this legislation. >> thank you, lee, and thank you so much to the supervisor's office for working on this. i will start with commissioner adams, if you would like to start the discussion, go ahead. >> yeah. first off, mr. hepner, thank you. this is something that's been in my mind for a while, and i am just so grateful that supervisor peskin is doing this. i'm all for a.d.u. units, but i live in the castro up on lower twin peaks. we've lost -- not only have we lost our laundromats up here, we've lost our dry cleaners, where you can actually do the wash and fold. there was three of them within

walking distance. they're all gone. and i do know, like, the big one that we recently lost about 1.5 years ago, which was on noe and 22, you know, this may be the lower twin peaks, half of my neighborhood, half of the people on this street do not have washers and dryers in their unit. we used to be able to go right down at market and hattie, and it's been gone. it's been gone for a few years. and the one at 18 and hollywood, it's gone. so people in this neighborhood, we have to go to sanchez, and if that closes, we may have to go over to kolb alley.

so i support this, and when i read this, i thought to myself, someone got it, so thank you, thank you, thank you. >> thank you. commissioner hui? >> yeah, thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, and yeah, definitely, this is something that i -- you know, in our communities, we recognize these are really important pieces of what, like, makes living in a walkable city walkable and liveable. so i had a couple of questions. one is what are some of the reasons, i guess maybe, like, the top, you know, reasons for the closures of the laundromats besides the real estate speculation? >> honestly, it's a great question, commissioner hui, and it's one that we hope to

understand. i think part of the provocation of this legislation and part of the three-year timeline, too, is to, you know, urge the planning department to dive deep into that. there is a question whether the c.u. is the best way to preserve that and is there other measures to do so. we don't fully understand why so many laundromats are closing down. are they profitable businesses? i talked to several businesses. tons of bubbles has several laundromats across the city. their owner has been enthusiastic about this, and everyone time we have to raise

money -- there's a lot of questions that i think we have to about why laundromats are closing down, and that's where the speculation piece comes in. i do know that sfgov and the p.u.c. has a voucher based program for coin-op laundries which allows -- i think it's designed to allow people to

have. >> -- but i think your question is -- is really one that we're also trying to ask. why are we seeing this crisis level of closure of laundromats. so i hope to be able to report back to you in a couple of years with a little more insight. >> yeah. i think that's -- you know, this is a question that we can ask about a lot of our community serving small businesses, right? like, what is causing closure. and i think what you said and specifically to -- might not be as possible as competing businesses, right? it's, like, really key to some of this is, like, to function in an everyday capacity is just, like, not that -- you know, it's -- it doesn't generate the revenues that are

[indiscernible] doing business [indiscernible] and are costing us. and one of the things that i think about is if we are trying to preserve these businesses, which it sounds like i love how much time you've put in to this presentation, but, like, is there a way that we can roll that into our -- almost, like, our vocational training programs because the city already offers many vocational and small business training programs? you -- this is a realistic plan

so people can learn -- teaching them how to grow a very specific business. that seems almost easier than teaching someone to grow a business in general. we could really help people build businesses here in san francisco with the city's help which would really turn that narrative of a small business,

like, having the toughest time -- like, you know we have this reputation of building all these barriers. wouldn't it be great if we actually were able to, like, grow businesses here, so yeah. i think there are tons of possibilities with this, and i really appreciate it. and also, i'm happy to talk more about it afterwards or, you know, think through things, too, so i'm here. thank you so much, lee. >> i love that idea. thank you, commissioner. >> so i don't see any other commissioner questions -- >> i'll just say -- sorry. >> i think we've got commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> can you hear me? >> yeah, go ahead. >> yeah, i just wanted to add, thank you, lee, for the presentation, and it's funny that you're bringing up this

because some of the c.b.o.s in the mission, we're actually coming up with ways to incorporate laundromats into our mixed use buildings because from a decade ago, 180, there's only 80 left in the city. so mission housing, meta, we're trying to incorporate laundromats into these new buildings and old buildings that we acquire because it's definitely a service that our community needs. >> thank you, commissioner. actually, meta, i talked to some folks over there, and they were really instrumental in supporting us on this. >> commissioner adams, did you have something else to add? >> i'm okay. i just do know for a fact that coin laundromats are cash cows.

you have maintenance, and i have seen the people who own these places and run them do very, very well, and to answer commissioner hui's issue, i know two of them that closed down in this area because the landlord just didn't renew their leases, and that was an issue. and one of the places is sitting empty still, so, you know, that -- and that's part of the problem right now. they're speculating, but the business is actually a very good business. >> thank you. >> i'll just say that i agree

with everything that's been said. i think our commission and particularly our racial equity committee is really looking to focus on businesses that serve low-income communities and kind of refocus. the pandemic made us just reaction to whoever was the loudest. and now, we're seeing as the dust settles, a lot of the equity and minority serving businesses were left out. so please let us know how we can support any amplification of community serving businesses and their needs. that's something we want to focus on. laundromats are a prime example of that, and i think we're all in full support. a couple questions that i had.

one is i think we've seen a couple of attempts at a mixed-use model of the laundromat and another business? is there anything in the code that maybe, you know, is preventing that from being more of a common common business model that might increase the solvency of this business type in the city or is it already addressed from your research and the planning code? that was one question i had, and then, a second question i had on the legislation, and i think in section 202. -- well, basically, when it says guidance for the commission, is it referencing, like, the planning commission might have discretion on whether they make

it that a c.u. would have to come after it because i saw it, like, the questions. is the business community serving? is it an amended type of laundry model, so my question is, does that mean that there's a pathway for if a business comes in, that it may not have to deal with a c.u. after a closure? >> so i can try to take those in order. as to your first question, i'm familiar with those, as well. i mean, i think the one that everybody loves is brain wash which was a laundromat and cafe. but even the one, commissioner adams, down the block from you, i think was wash and spin, but

it's got the cafe or the florist in front. >> sit and spin. >> and i think there was one maybe to have a bar concept at one point. but i think that that is -- inasmuch as a laundromat is a principally permitted use, adding another principally permitted use, whether that's a cafe or something else, i think that the code does allow for that, probably within certain boundaries. like, the boundaries that you're not going to have an adult use accessory use to a laundromat, though maybe somebody should think outside the box there, too. but i think that should be allowed, and the code does allow that flexibility that that is allowed, and that makes the case. as to your second question -- oh, the discretion that the commission has. so your proposal, if a laundromat goes out of

business, any subsequent business that is not a laundromat would be routed through the community business processing program, which means that the business operator would be entitled to a hearing within 90 days of their application, and as far as i have been able to tell, the city has been really good at adhering to that 90 daytime line. and part of the process -- part of the project there is to -- let's not eliminate the process, but let's eliminate the longer process at the same time. what i envision is that if a laundromat closes down, the commission has the right to ask questions why it closed down

and was there a diligent search for a replacement operator for that community serving business, and for the community to have an opportunity to be able to come out, too, and say, that was my laundromat. i don't know what to do. i don't have in-building laundry, and to really make the case that hey, maybe the building owner needs to find a proprietor that will keep it as a laundromat and it can continue serving the community, and look at the next business in terms of how it's going to serve the community in that capacity. >> okay. thank you. in our ability to put landlords of existing laundromats on notice about this legislation,

and being a disincentive for eviction or whatnot, are we able to send, like, targeted letters? like, how does that work? >> you know, part of the project that i'm hoping our interns can pull together in the next few weeks involves printing out fliers that we can go and walk around and deliver to laundromats, so hand delivering notices to those businesses. i think in the same breath offering opportunities for patrons of these businesses to learn more about the legislation and to add their voices of support to the legislation, but certainly, there is a notice component of that. and i think it is only appropriate that some people have a press push out here or go the extra mile and alert, you know, commercial realtors

to this, though they tend to be pretty hawkish when it comes to legislation moving through the process. i think our best bet at this stage of the legislative process is to do the direct leaflet delivery to the laundromats, and that's what we'd like to see. >> i love it. >> yeah. >> there's not any c.u.s currently related to a relocation of a laundromat, right? >> no. >> uh-huh. okay. so i'm just trying to think -- you know, our commission, one of our concerns, which you heard, is if a laund row mad needs -- if a laundromat needs to relocate or move through no fault of its own, is there a

way to make sure that a new laund row mass doesn't have to come in and deal with an intended purpose like a c.u. >> if there's a laundromat replacing a laundromat or dry cleaner, there's no c.u. i think your question is what if the laund row mad relocated consensually or if there's a parting of ways? i think when you cast any net for tuna, you're going to get a dolphin in there, and that's an unfortunate elegant way of how we legislate around anything. we'd like to allow for some of that vetting to be heard, but i think more often, what we're going to find, given the

precipitous decline of laundromats, this is the canary in the coal mine. every once in a while, i'm sure we're going to find an owner of a laundromat who doesn't want to operate anymore. there's a woman in my neighborhood who wants me to operate her laundromat because she knows i love them so much. >> from the case studies of lost laundromats that you've seen thus far, there's no new small businesses going in there; it's more like an entire unit, you know, new use, and usually, a developer or

something, right? so this is the trend that you've identified and closures that you've studied? >> right. and i hate to say it, but one of my favorite bars is in a place that was a former laundromat. so that's what we're seeing, and addressing that is going to be complicated, but this scratches the surface and allows us the time we need to learn a lot more. >> okay. i guess i'm just trying to understand if this is based on data or a trend or if this is going to help us get data because it seems that we're putting in a request for prior trends, and we want to get the

data. >> about one in 11 laundromats have closed in the last seven years. there is nothing in this legislation itself that requires departments to study why this is happening. that is going to have to be someone's torch to carry, and we will have put in a three-year stopgap measure where every once in a while, one of these is going to come to the commission and we're going to be able to use this for understanding what goes on holistically, and i hope this is catalyzing some attention paid to the problem and a deeper study why this is happening in the first place. >> okay. i think that helps me understand the problem a little bit better. director dick-endrizzi, did you

have anything you wanted to say? >> i believe commissioner adams was before me -- oh, he already spoke. so a couple of things to maybe give some consideration to so maybe help gather some of that data? home s.f. is the home equity density bonus program, and when they're demolishing or doing extensive development on a property, that they notify oewd if they're going to be displacing a small business. so a thought is that for property owners who are choosing not to renew a lease, that there's a requirement to notify planning and oewd? and then -- and then, in reference to some of your

comments, commissioner hui, is -- and also commissioner adams, if -- if, you know, these -- if laundromats [indiscernible] i think, you know -- this isn't -- this isn't something is necessarily put into the legislation, but you might want to give consideration to add as additional comments when carry moves forward, your recommendation that what may be challenging is the start-up costs to open or relocate if a property owner is not going to renew a lease, then to relocate a laundromat, so the cost of equipment, you know, perhaps in parallel at least from an

equity perspective, these are very important businesses to retain? in parallel, supervisor peskin is introducing a land use solution, but in parallel, there needs to be some economic solutions, as well. and maybe the three years this program is in place, you may want to recommend that a complimentary sort of program -- like, commissioner hui, you identified that let's take a look at these businesses, but we may want to partner support for having these businesses get open, right, or relocate. so those are just some

thoughts. >> i mean, the coin shortage is the one that's kind of open in the room, too. i don't know what the banks are giving the laundromats, so i don't know if that seems a little -- like, i don't know how much the city can solve for that economic barrier, but that sounds like one of them. if there's not any other comments, i'll call for public comment, and if you want to hangout, lee, that would be great. sfgov, can you see if there are any callers on the line? >> we have no public callers on the line.

>> seeing no callers on the line, public comment is closed. commissioners, do we have any action? >> i would definitely make a motion to support this piece of legislation. like lee was saying, there's kind of an urgency with this because you're seeing lots of them close. there's a couple of them i know in this area that are going to be closing probably in the next six months, so this is something i really would like to see get approved, so i would motion to approve this. >> we have a motion. is there a second? >> i'll second. >> clerk: okay. seconded by commissioner hui, so motion to support. i will read the roll. [roll call]

>> i know this is probably not right, but if we wanted to make the recommendation that director dick-endrizzi made? >> yes. you can make the legislation and then come back and say we want to add these supporting comments to the letter that we send forward to the board of supervisors, so there's two ways that you can address it. but commissioner adams, if you do want to include in your motion kind of the -- you know, the -- >> yeah, i appreciate your comments. i didn't know if we could do that, since we are in the middle of taking votes, we can

do that. >> you can rescind your motion -- >> well, nobody else has voted, so i will rescind my motion and reintroduce my motion with the director's comments on the relocation, and if you want to help me with that. >> that the motion would be to support the legislation? >> yes. >> recommend the board of supervisors approve the legislation, and that these are important equity -- these are important businesses to preserve from an equity perspective and therefore need -- the city should look at an economic development program to support relocation and/or the -- supporting the establishment of new

laundromats. >> thank you. you said that perfectly, so that. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion. is there a second? >> yes, i second that. >> seconded by commissioner hui. and i will read the roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: yes. motion passes 4-0, with three commissioners absent. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you so much, lee. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, lee. >> great. next item, please. >> clerk: item 3, board of supervisors ordinance, file number 211010, appropriation

and deappropriatetion, office of economic and workforce development, legacy business, $400,000, fiscal year 2021-2022. this is a discussion item and action item. the commission will discuss and vote on possible recommendations regarding ordinance file 211010. an ordinance deappropriating $400,000 previously appropriated to the office of economic and workforce development for the office of small business' legacy business historic preservation fund and reappropriating $400,000 to e.c.n. to provide a new grant program for legacy businesses in fiscal year 2021-2022. we have director dick-endrizzi

and richard kurylo, office of small business. >> so i mentioned this at the last meeting in regards to -- that this funding is a result of supervisor chan, peskin, and ronen doing an add-back and because of where the funding ended up, we are -- where the funding ended up in our line-item budget, we are requesting that the item be removed. we're doing this specifically because of the need of -- beginning to change any business assistant grant type of funding that comes to the legacy business program. so rick is going to review with you, give you an overview and provide you with some information on that, so i'm now

going to turn it over to him. so rick, take it away with your powerpoint presentation. >> [indiscernible] and reappropriating that $400,000 to a different fund to provide a new grant program for legacy businesses in fiscal year 21-22. the office of small business

received a $400,000 ad-back for the legacy -- add-back for the legacy business program in the 2021-22 budget. the board of supervisors specifically recorded the add-back at $400,000 for the replenishment of the legacy business preservation fund to be used for direct grants to qualify small businesses. so the legacy business historic preservation fund to which they were referring was added to the administrative code to proposition j in november 2015. it can only be changed by going back to the voters. the fund consists of two grant programs. the business assistance grant, for grants to legacy businesses, and rent

stabilization grant, for lands that provide stabilization to tenants. the $400,000 would be needed to use for the legacy business grant because that is the only grant to the legacy businesses within the historic preservation fund, however, there are major problems with the business assistance fund. it pays grantees for full time equivalent employees, f.t.e.s, and would only pay about $75 per f.t.e., considering $400,000 divided by about 280 applicants. number two, the grant would be too small for microand small businesses, which often need the most assistance. businesses that struggled during the pandemic are struggling with f.t.e.s. the range of grants would too

large, ranging from about $75 to about $7500. it's difficult for applicants to calculate their f.t.e.s, and many applicants calculated f.t.e.s inappropriately in the past. the solution is the development of a new grant we're calling a legacy business grant, featuring a new grant that has a simpler application and has an easier review process. under the new grant, there would be four types, prioritizing renters over property owners. the city attorney vises that the city cannot create a new

grant program within the legacy business historic preservation fund, but it could create a new grant outside of that fund. the only way to make an amendment to the only appropriation ordinance after the controller certifies the availability of fund is to reappropriate the funds. there are six sample grants demonstrating the difference between the legacy business grant and the proposed legacy business grant. rows a, c, and e in the green are all for-profit businesses

renting spaces. all three would have received less than $320 through the business assistance grant, would receive over $1600 through the legacy business grant. row b in yellow is a large for-profit property owner in district ten. they would receive 5600 through the business grant but 1200 through the legacy business grant, and rows d and f in orange are large nonprofit renters in district 3 and district 9 which would receive about $7,000 and 5700 through the business assistance grant but 823 through the legacy business grant, so it kind of gives you an idea that the legacy business grant is much more equal through all the appointees.

this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, richard, and commissioners, if you have any questions, you can put them in the chat. i want to say thank you, director dick-endrizzi for knowing our business so well to be able to make these kind of material and concrete recommendations. i mean, the board, i hope they know what an asset we are because we've been able to really tell them what the best use of their money is, what the best use of their money can go towards, and how you're in the lead of this program, and you've identified how to make

it more equitable, and thank you for this, and i'll let commissioner adams -- >> no, i just want to say. i want to echo what you just said. you said it beautifully, vice president zouzounis. and everything that miriam just said, i want to say, so that was beautiful, commissioner. i'm sorry. >> so i guess can we ask how this is being received from oewd, and the supervisors who [indiscernible]? >> yes. so one, you know, the

appropriation ordinance says oewd, just because our budget is under the larger oewd -- >> okay. so they're not giving us problems. >> no, no, no. so this is just how the ordinance needs to be written, and once the funds are deappropriated out of the legacy business preservation fund, it will be reappropriated into another line item in o.s.b.s budget, so just to make sure that everyone's clear on that. i mean, so far, when we -- we did some -- when we determined -- when we found out that the funding was put into the legacy business historic preservation fund, then, we went to the city attorney and said can we create an additional program under the historic preservation fund line item, and it was determined

that we could not. so then, we had to reach back out to the supervisor chan as the primary legislative sponsor for the add-back, so we reached back out, and they weren't really grasping why we needed to make the change? and so rick did a really excellent job in doing -- i forwarded you the cover letter and the document that he -- we sent over, and they got it, right, and they understood it. so we have -- supervisor chan is actually the sponsor in this ordinance, so we have the three sponsors in the add-back supporting this change, and we met with supervisor haney's aide today, and she doesn't anticipate it being an issue. and one of the other issues is the budget and legislative

analyst is recommending approval. so -- so i think we'll get the support from the supervisors. i don't think it's going to be an issue. >> great. >> and so just to be clear, your support for the recommendation is not really supporting -- your support would be to -- is basically deappropriating the funding out of the, you know, historic preservation fund and reappropriating it into a new line item under our budget, and it's not so much a recommendation in relationship to the program, but what we're identifying is how we will be expending those funds? so it does demonstrate the benefit of taking those funds out of the historic

preservation funds and putting them into a new line item, if that makes sense. >> yes, it does. so we can take action on this without any other further explanatory recommendation. got it. >> mm-hmm. >> okay. >> with that, do we have any other commissioner comments before we take an action? >> clerk: don't forget public comment. >> oh, yeah, okay. i'll call for public comment. are there any -- sfgovtv, are there any callers on the line? >> clerk: there are no callers in the queue. . >> public comment is closed, seeing no callers on the line. commissioners, this is an action item, correct? >> yes. >> so do we have a motion?

>> i motion to approve the -- the -- i don't know what this is. ordinance? >> yeah, you can just say the -- yeah, the ordinance or b.o.s. file 211010. >> that's exactly what i'd make a motion for. >> i'll second it. >> clerk: seconded by commissioner adams. i will now read the roll. [roll call]

. >> clerk: motion passes 4-0 with three members absent. >> great. item 4. >> clerk: item 4, residence aleutian making findings to allow teleconferenced meetings under california government code section 54953-e. the commission will discuss and vote on a resolution that it has considered or reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency and either 2-a, that the state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of members to meet safely in person, or 2-b, that state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote distancing. i'll be reviewing this with you.

basically, based on california government code section 54953-e, that there was a state of emergency declared because of covid-19, that it prevents us from meeting in person safely, and that local officials do continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing. and the resolution in front of you today confirms these findings, and moving forward, we'll need to reconfirm them every 30 days to continue our meeting remotely. i can put the resolution up on my screen if that would be helpful. >> i understand that, and i think it's procedural. >> yeah. >> clerk: yeah.

>> so are we going to have this, like, on our agenda every month? >> clerk: yeah. every 30 days, you'll have to renew that which basically says you'll have to keep finding these findings. >> but i have a question. is there any time when we'll be able to go back to city hall? >> yeah. not an affirmative date? there's still discussion around, you know, november being the time that the city employees return, so there is the possibility that commission meetings may return in november, but there's still no confirm date yet.

>> okay. >> so if we don't have any questions, we should call for public comment. >> clerk: okay. sfgovtv, is anybody on the public, public comment? >> operator: there is no public comment. >> seeing no public comment, item -- public comment is closed. commissioners, do we have a motion on item 4? >> i make a motion that we approve item 4, the resolution making findings to allow teleconference meetings under the california government code section 54953-e, and a motion to approve it. >> clerk: commissioner adams made the motion. is there a second? >> i second it. >> clerk: seconded by commissioner hui. i'll call the roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: motion passes 4-0, with three members absent. >> great. next item, please. >> clerk: item 5, approval of draft meeting minutes. this is an action item. >> does anyone have any comments on the minutes before i ask for public comment? okay. great. are there any commenters on the line for item 5? >> clerk: there is no public comment. >> oh, there's not. okay. public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> i'll motion to approve the draft meeting minutes. >> okay. i'll second. >> clerk: okay.

motion to approve by commissioner adams, seconded by vice president zouzounis. i'll now read the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: motion passes, 4-0, with three commissioners absent. >> next item, please. >> clerk: item 6, general public comment. this is a discussion item which allows members of the public to comment on matters that are within the small business commission's jurisdiction but not on today's calendar and suggest new agenda items for this commission's future consideration. >> are there any public callers on the line for item 6?

>> clerk: there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. item 6, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> clerk: item 7, director's report. this is an updated report on the office of small business and the small business assistance center, department programs, policy, and legislative matters, announcements from the mayor, and announcements regarding small business activities. this is a discussion item. >> good evening, commissioners. there are a couple items i want to just bring to your attention. commissioner dickerson had noted at our last commission meeting she's going to be part of the city administrator carmen chu's two-day summit to help inform, educate, and encourage san francisco small businesses and helping l.b.e.s

with the city, and that is taking place october -- tomorrow and wednesday, and we did have that in the announcement that went out in the osbe newsletter. in addition, oewd and s.f. made, as part of the manufacturing week, are hosting a hiring fair on october 6. and then next week will be the -- just bay area disability entrepreneurship week. so those are some business activities that are taking place that would be of interest to the basis community. i also want to inform you, in case you did not know, that the

commission voted to send a letter to the m.t.a. regarding business loading zones and cost. what has resulted from the letter and feedback from many businesses and business organizations is sfmta has cut the application fee from $775 to $387.50, so cut the application fee in half. businesses are eligible for this reduced application fee if they apply by december 31, 2021, so that's roughly three months. and i do want to make a special note that sfmta is encouraging businesses to first consider getting an assessment as to space that they're looking to do -- that they might apply for a general loading zone would be

permissible. so sfmta is offering to do an assessment so businesses don't -- if it's not going to work out, that they do not submit a nonrefundable application fee. so that is noted under the general loading zone so that's there for businesses, as well. and then, i attended the upper haight merchant meeting last thursday. 18 businesses have been sued. of note is some of the businesses, what their lawsuits are for is not necessarily the entryway but things like counters being too high, the

height of the dining room tables. so i think what that says is there really needs an effort made around educating our businesses. we're dealing with the entryway with the a.b.e. ordinance, and with the upper haight, you know, with the upper haight just went through two years of doing improvements. they're working with the property owners to, where it is doable, to kind of grade the sidewalk in a way from the entryway to create a level landing. this was done on castro street when castro street had its sidewalk improvements, so that's one step that the city is really taking to help, you

know, help create more accessible entryways. so what we do have, particularly in the upper haight as in the castro, we now have more accessible entryways as a result of the work that public works is doing with property owners when we're doing sidewalk improvements. so we're definitely going to look to expand and strengthen our education program for businesses, one, that they should be getting a [indiscernible] inspection and ensure an interior [indiscernible] inspection, and just ensure that businesses really understand that even if they have an accessible entryway, that there still may be other barriers that they need to remediate. and then, also think about employee training? just like, i mean, i try -- for

restaurants, i liken it to you're training your employees on all the things that they need to comply, the health code and the environment, well, we need to add that to make sure we're maintaining an accessible environment, as well. so we're going to be looking to work to try to develop more of a training program and work with the merchants associations on that. in addition, we are now seeing also an increase -- we now have -- or not seeing an increase. we're now starting to see businesses that are being sued for nonaccessible website, and this is particularly with their e-commerce section? so it is a little frustrating because a lot of businesses purchase what i call off-the-shelf products for

e-commerce, and these product developers aren't ensuring that their product are -- meets accessibility guidelines or informs the business, if they're making any modifications -- like, giving them a tool to test, that any modifications, they're meeting -- they're maintaining compliance for an accessible website. so i think this is sort of a new policy area that's going to need to be looked at, and so we're looking -- we're also looking internally with staff to see what we can do and create a space on our website to make sure what tools that

you can use to make sure that your website is accessible and then work with our organizations, to make sure that this is something they should be asking the product that they're purchasing as to whether they are a.d.a. accessible, and if they are, can they prove it? so -- and i -- and commissioner adams, i know that you have just recently gone through some efforts yourself, so please feel free, if you want to take a moment to share that. >> no, and i appreciate that because i'm still going runs through that on a number of our properties. we're in the process now of registering with the state, and you can put your inspections up on the state architecture site.

people are looking -- but i found out that people are not even driving by in these lawsuits. they're looking at google maps and stuff, and doing it that way, so just -- we all want to do the right thing, and, you know, we're making our changes. we had our cass inspections done. i had three more in the process that we're undergoing right now and are making those changes. there is support out there, at least from the state, from where i'm at, so i appreciate that. >> right, and thank you, commissioner adams, for reminding me, is that the state architect now, if you do have a cass inspection -- so let's say you've just recently had your cass inspection. you haven't been able to remediate your barriers. you can have your cass -- you

can have your business and address identified under this one section called 120-day stay. so it does inform if -- it does inform those that are paying attention to this section of the state architect site that you just recently had your cass inspection and therefore are going through the process. so one of the benefits of having that cass is a 120-day stay. and also, there's another section -- there's two sections -- >> yeah. there's a 120-day stay, and then, you can register it with your cass inspection number, property address, all of that. >> so i'm bringing that to your attention just so -- so there's definitely -- i think moving forward, we just -- you know, it's part of this office's effort, you know, regardless to

whether i'm here or not here, how we can continue to help really encourage businesses to get their cast inspection, understand, you know, precovid -- i know that there is one coffee shop on valencia street, had an accessible entryway, but got sued because they had a counter, the top, the milk, and the sugars and all of that was just too high. so any way, we need to encourage businesses to really understand the inside, even for new businesses in addition to businesses that have been open for a while. i want to -- under policy and legislative matters, i do want to note that supervisor safai's legislation on the commercial rent relief that you supported has passed out of the board of supervisors with a total of

eight supervisors supporting that. still no information yet as to whether that -- the commercial rent relief will be funded. the resolution that you adopted regarding the employee tax credit, that has been forwarded, and i think carrie did inform you, has been forwarded to all the key folks in the city and the office of economic and workforce development, so i'll be following up with her this week because she was out last week, so just what the next steps might be in response to the resolution so that i can provide you with that. then, i want to just -- i want to kind of -- as we move -- as

you move forward, as we all move forward, legislation is happening, and it's -- you know, as -- i mean, as commissioner adams, and even you, commissioner ortiz-cartagena, have been here for a while, we can see that -- i mean, there's been an extraordinary difference where the office of small business and the small business community wasn't consulted in drafting legislation, and -- and therefore, you know, the role of the commission in dealing with legislation at the time and having -- there was a lot more nuancing and recommendations for amendments, and fortunately, we're sort of more in a place of office staff having more involvement in advising on drafting of legislation. and so, you know, to give some consider for what's -- what are

some additional -- besides making some legislation and recommendations, what else can the commission do? so the commission can take a look at policy or different procedures. we did this -- we took some initial steps in this -- in taking a look at it, getting presentations from departments. it may be multiple presentations from multiple departments over different meetings than to coalesce a recommendation. this was similar to what was done with the commission working group, so i just sort of laid that out there in terms of you might want to think about moving forward in terms of taking on two or three policy items that you want to take a look on, do some is deep dives, and then have the

commission come together to make its policy recommendation. and to kind of follow up with this, we had a -- we start to have a very robust discussion with the formula retail and conditional use. so i want to do just some policy reminders and then, you know, i don't -- it's not -- it's not agendized for us to have a robust discussion, but just kind of utilizing -- i want to provide you just with some information just kind of give some thought to it. so one is just a reminder, that under the cb3p program, which is the expedited conditional use, formula retailers are permitted to use the cb3p to

help our local home-grown businesses. so the other thing to give consideration to is the fact that there are still businesses that have to go through conditional use just like a formula retailer, and these businesses are not eligible for the cb3p, and that is like a tobacco retail establishment, nighttime bars or restaurants or things that have a full alcohol license. so it's not just places that serve beer and wine, but that they are able to serve spirits, as well. i think it's always important

to remember that there are individual businesses who also have to go through that same conditional use process. then, i also -- having gone through my own experience of having worked with a retailer from when they were three stores to -- i think i left when they had 13 stores, and just being able to see, you know, what a business could do having, you know, a higher number of businesses. and i was an area manager, and what i experienced as an area manager is that sometimes new stores, it would take them a year before they started to break even? and to be able to support that cost, it helped by having other profitable stores. so -- and that was able to sustain that new location,

being able to get, you know, off the ground and start generating a profit. so something that -- so when we're talking about formula retail, i just want to make sure, you know, that it's not to say that the expense of going through the conditional use is not something to be considered, but we have to also remember sometimes who's the messenger, and sometimes the messenger are the retailers, and there's a higher profitability with being able to lease two formula retail. but the greater thing that, i think, needs to be given consideration, and if we kind of look at el faralito situation, and i'm going to say this without being able to absolutely affirm, you know, their schedule of growth? but they opened their first two

locations in 1997. they opened a third location in san francisco in 1998. the fourth location in san francisco was opened in 2014. it recently closed in january of 2021, but i think, you know, some of the conversation that we are hearing in -- regarding our local home grown formula retailers is they -- they may have two or three locations, and then, they leave the city to be able to grow even more and then come back rk and prafg -- come back, and perhaps some of that is being done because you might need to grow your

business outside of san francisco in order to come back in order to grow your business. i sort of liken back to when i first moved here, i don't know how much of you remember just desserts. it was in many neighborhoods, and it was the place to go, and it was a san francisco home grown thing. and i don't think that we quite see that kind of home grown business anymore in multiple neighborhoods, so when we're talking about, you know, kind of growth and expansion, yes, the formula retail costs, but it's a one-time cost. like, once you get through it, it's a one-time cost, and can you afford the cost on an ongoing basis? [please stand by]

>> director: so i just -- i just, you know, as you if the commission's going to give policy consideration in relation to formula retail, i think just don't forget there are other potential considerations that might affect this as well. so i'll just leave it at that. so with large -- with businesses growing their business through e commerce

first and then wanting to do land use and then have a store. so as a reminder and i believe, commissioner adams, you can correct me and i believe vice president zouzounis, the planning department said it's not within their purview to establish any kind of economic distinction so that is if there's interest from the commission, that can be something that's explored on your behalf -- not your behalf, but you can explore what that could be from a policy perspective.

but, again, you know, the planning department did note their role and their purview is regulating land, so anyway. that is why e commerce, we don't have an e-commerce designation that potentially could be applied for formula retail. and then, also, i just want to remind the commission that the economic mitigation working group did set forward or did produce a set of 15 recommendations and discussion with vice president zouzounis who's the chair of the equity special committee, the racial equity special committee. you know, this is something that the racial equity special committee can look at, but there's a set of

recommendations too that can be looked at and discussed. and i think there's kind of a top three that i look at. one is the elimination of the deemed approved use fee to amend the tobacco retail sales so that it allows for other family members and expands the family member definition if the business is passed on to the family that they're able to retain. the tobacco license and then the cigarette litter abatement fee, but there is a whole host of others. so i'll resend that list to you for you to take a look at. and then lastly, i just want to make a note that i am having

carrie work on a resolution regarding ada tax credits because it turns out the annual tax credit and deductions that businesses can take, that hasn't changed since 1998 and it turns out through carrie's research, excellent job on her part, that she found out that senator duckworth in 2018 and 2019 put forward a bill to increase those tax credits and deductions, but, you know, it was under the trump administration, so those kind of died on the floor. so it's good to know that we have, you know, senators at the federal level who are also thinking about this and so looking to draft a resolution to help our local government encouraging our state -- our

federal officials to continue to support and maybe encourage senator duckworth to reintroduce that bill. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions and i will leave it there. >> vice president zouzounis: thank you, director. commissioners, do we have any questions for director dick endrizzi? commissioner huie. >> commissioner huie: that was a lot. thank you very much. that was a lot to digest. i am wondering in terms of formula retail, what in the past, how has this mission gone about to explore -- like, was there a sub committee. i feel like this was a huge

topic like you were saying in terms of all the different policies that have happened and and i feel that our commission's role is so important because they're in such a disconnect in policy and what actually happens in real life and speaking of other, you know, i guess without bringing up other topics and things, i think we have such an intimate understanding of how a business operates, runs, what we're thinking in terms of how we weigh our decisions and i think that's something that, you know, i wouldn't expect other people to understand unless they've really been in our shoes. like the example you brought up

in your. so how do we then bridge that gap between the idea of land use and the actual economics of running a business today. so i think that conversation is so -- go ahead. >> commissioner: i can jump in because i lived and breathed for the last eleven years and we've had sub committees and out of it we made changes to the cp3 program. we were able to make some changes, but you have to

realize this is a voter mandated thing. so we can only do so much you have to go to the voter. she said i was involved in every one of these subgroups trying to make those changes because i hear your frustration on this. i mean, i'm living it myself and i hear it through others. this isn't an overnight thing. it's going to have to come from changes from the mayor's office, from the board of supervisors. unfortunately, i mean, this commission has tried to do some changes. we've had some division on the commission with this. so, you know, in all fairness,

we've had groups that we've met with the planning department. it's a tough thing and without getting into discussion on this, because we can't, but we've had groups in the past that came out with positives on this. maybe we can have a retreat and talk about and see what we can do. >> commissioner huie: yeah. i don't think we're going to solve this and i don't even know what that solution would look like, you know. i think it's just -- i think is there a way that our commission can help shape the narrative for the present and then the near future? because the landscape looks very different than it did even five years ago at this point. so my hope is that i think putting it on the retreat

agenda is a great idea. like having some space to be able to think about it and how do we fit into that narrative? because i think we've -- you have obviously put in a lot of work and other commissioners have obviously dealt with it. >> commissioner: yeah. and i think the best thing to do going forward and we've done this. i think for people like you and people on the commission to have planning come in and somebody from planning explain it because it's a lot. and it's really important i feel, especially, you know, you've been out on clement street. i mean you know what's going on. your own shop. you're involved with your merchant organization and so i know what you get being involved in a merchant

organization and i think there's things as merchant organizations, they may not last -- i mean, they don't know what's really out there and i think the first step is to have somebody come in and explain everything to the commission. >> director: right. and to add to commissioner adams' comments, sometimes things are department driven, so the 2014 analysis was a department-led effort by the planning department and so therefore they included a representative of small business commission which i think was you, commissioner adams, but then they also had neighborhood representation which is where commissioner dooley and i think vice president zouzounis were involved through that. sometimes things are department

driven and you might write a resolution that says, "we request that the department do xyz." i think one thing commissioner adams said is one thing for the commission to get a full briefing on the history. we'll use formula retail as an example and just get a full history of the formula retail from inception, what changes have taken place, you know, what's there. so, you know, that's why i reiterated that, you know, we do have exceptions for formula retail to at the point them go through the conditional use process just like other small businesses who have to go through conditional use that can derive that benefit. so sometimes that may not necessarily be in everybody's, you know, forefront of their mind.

so there's a history and then i think, you know, where the commission can really help weigh in and sort of do some potential sort of recommendations is around the e-commerce side. so, again, you know, that was 2014 and the planning commission city attorney said that this is not an area for them to take leadership in because of, you know, their department, their role, and their function, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the commission can't take the leadership in that. so what would that entail? and that is something that, you know, then working with carrie would be, you know, what is the information we would want to gather to hear to then be able to inform and make a recommendation. or it could be that a special

committee is created, though that's a lot of additional work. but to do a deep dive into it as well. but sometimes it benefits to have the full commission to have those presentations. so, um, so any other questions? >> vice president zouzounis: i was just going to say, i was on the subsidiary as the small business group and i think that was around 2015. it might have been right after the 2014 formal group convened, they had a subsidiary working group. so i know that that had -- i mean, our focus was a little different because it was on formula retailers that were

creating adjacent businesses thoughts. my memory doesn't serve there's been any changes. so i think if it's something that we want to formally request as a body to have a presentation on both the formula retail and the subsidiary codes because i think they are distinct in that sense, yeah. but i think we should take into account everything that the director said that there are policy initiatives. we've already started at the commission that will address some of the economic barriers

for small businesses that are, you know, hoping to become expanded businesses with multiple locations. i think fee mitigation is something we have said over and over again and i would love to see us follow through on some of the policy proposals we've made in those areas and maybe use this as our contribution to the formula retail conversation. so really identifying what we feel like our niche is in that but i'm happy to keep brainstorming around that. >> director: and the last thing i'll say and hopefully we

can move into public comment. but the one thing that is different is e-commerce in 2014 is very different than e-commerce now and so that is a particular area that i think is worth exploring. so i think if there aren't any more commissioner questions, then we should move on to public comment. >> vice president zouzounis: are there any public callers on the line for item number seven? >> clerk: there are no callers in queue. >> vice president zouzounis: thank you. public comment is closed. thank you, director. may we please take the next item. >> clerk: item eight,

commissioner discussion and new business. allows president, vice president, and commissioners to report on recent small business activities, make announcements that are of interest to the small business community, and make inquiries of staff and allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for consideration. this is a discussion item. >> vice president zouzounis: thank you, carrie. do we have any commissioners who want to give a report at this time? we do the work. we don't always have to talk about it. all right. i'll give a quick one. i was invited by supervisor stefani to join a union street merchant walk as part of the

activation. okay. yeah. i'm still commenting for as part of the merchant group and avenue green light projects there. that was really neat. i met some of your clement street colleagues. commissioner huie, you have a great crew out there. active merchant groups are now helping other merchant groups and i see that as a big benefit from this project as part of the san francisco merchant groups. so that was a really great event on union street. so props to that association and, today, i also joined some of our colleagues as part of the healthy retail program and food trusts that are helping small retailers, small grocers

address some of their supply chain needs as it pertains to getting healthy products and more to come on that. commissioner huie, i'll pass it to you. >> commissioner huie: i don't always like to share the stuff that i do, i guess. not because i'm secretive about it but just because, you know, like all of us, we kind of just do our thing, but one of the things that i'm working on is helping the chinese historical society of america plan a street fair in chinatown and we got our street closure on joyce alley, so joyce street and we're working in partnership with c.c.c. which is i think "chinese cultural center" of san francisco. i may have that totally wrong. but we are partnering with them

and they're producing a performance, a day of dance called "dancing on waiverly" and so there are two festivals happening at the same time and it's scheduled for october 16th. and it's kind of like a marketplace where we've invited vendors who are exploring their a.a.p.i. heritage and bringing forth crafts and art and we'll have different artists with their work and hopefully artists talks and things like that. and the thing that's really significant about this is that we are working in collaboration with others and i find that in this community, it's really important for us to really think about how we can collaborate and create partnerships and, you know,

this is -- i guess what you said, vice president zouzounis, was that, you know, merchants associations are collaborating with each other. you know, people in different neighborhoods are collaborating with each other. even in the same neighborhood. i think what we need now is really the concept of how do we lift all of us up. let's not reinventing the stuff, and that's what we're hoping for with the street fair, is the opportunity to make new connections and bring people into the neighborhood and create something hopefully that will be sustaining. so this is the first of the fair. hopefully, this will continue and i'm kind of helping them make businesses. so, hopefully, if you guys are in chinatown or interested in

going to chinatown on october 16th. i think the next day is going to be phoenix day for the whole city, so lots of activities. i know clement street has some things planned. yeah. i'm also excited about fleet week. that's coming up too. i don't want to be a sitting calendar, but there are a lot of things happening that, you know, i am really excited to see because it's time we celebrate a little bit, you know. so, yeah. i'm open for more collaborations and meeting new people. thanks. >> vice president zouzounis: seeing no more commissioners. i'll take public comment. do we have any commentors for item number eight on the line? >> clerk: we have no callers

in queue. >> vice president zouzounis: thank you. public comment is closed for item eight. next item. >> clerk: item nine adjournment. this is an action item. >> commissioner: i move to adjourn. >> vice president zouzounis: second. >> clerk: moved by commissioner ortiz-cartagena and seconded by vice president zouzounis. okay. motion to adjourn. [roll call] motion passes four to none with three commissioners absent.

do we have to read a closing statement before we close? >> director: well, we just -- the office of small business slide should be read before we do adjournment. so we'll just have to bypass that. >> clerk: oh, right. okay. meeting is adjourned at 6:27 p.m. then. >> director: thank you, commissioners. >> vice president zouzounis: thank you everybody.

>> 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. [ ♪♪♪ ]

>> i went through a lot of struggles in my life, and i am blessed to be part of this. i am familiar with what people are going through to relate and empathy and compassion to their struggle so they can see i came out of the struggle, it gives them hope to come up and do something positive. ♪ ♪ i am a community ambassador.

we work a lot with homeless, visitors, a lot of people in the area. >> what i like doing is posting up at hotspots to let people see visibility. they ask you questions, ask you directions, they might have a question about what services are available. checking in, you guys. >> wellness check. we walk by to see any individual, you know may be sitting on the sidewalk, we make sure they are okay, alive. you never know. somebody might walk by and they are laying there for hours. you never know if they are alive. we let them know we are in the area and we are here to promote safety, and if they have

somebody that is, you know, hanging around that they don't want to call the police on, they don't have to call the police. they can call us. we can direct them to the services they might need. >> we do the three one one to keep the city neighborhoods clean. there are people dumping, waste on the ground and needles on the ground. it is unsafe for children and adults to commute through the streets. when we see them we take a picture dispatch to 311. they give us a tracking number and they come later on to pick it up. we take pride. when we come back later in the day and we see the loose trash or debris is picked up it makes you feel good about what you are doing. >> it makes you feel did about escorting kids and having them feel safe walking to the play area and back.

the stuff we do as ambassadors makes us feel proud to help keep the city clean, helping the residents. >> you can see the community ambassadors. i used to be on the streets. i didn't think i could become a community ambassador. it was too far out there for me to grab, you know. doing this job makes me feel good. because i came from where a lot of them are, homeless and on the street, i feel like i can give them hope because i was once there. i am not afraid to tell them i used to be here. i used to be like this, you know. i have compassion for people that are on the streets like the homeless and people that are caught up with their addiction because now, i feel like i can

give them hope. it reminds you every day of where i used to be and where i am at now. >> clerk: to enable public participation, sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will receive public comment for every item on today's agenda. opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling

415-655-0001, and entering access coat 2495-527-2323. please press pound twice, and then star, three to enter the queue. when your allotted time is reached, i will announce your time is up and take the next caller. best practices are to speak slowly and clearly, state your name, and turn down the volume on your television or computer. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call]

>> clerk: thank you, commissioners. first on your calendar are items proposed to continue kwan is 2017-01 is -- 2017-015678-cua at 425 broadway and item 2, 2019-022661 cua at 628 shotwell street. seeing no request to speak from members of the public, public comments are closed, and your continuance calendar is before you, commissioners.

>> president koppel: commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: move to continue items 1 and 2 as proposed. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion to continue items 1 and 2 as proposed -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6-0, placing us on your consent calendar. the matter listed hereunder constitute your consent calendar and are considered to be routine and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of this item unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a

future hearing, matter 2020-006344-cua at 37 vicente street. members of the public, this is your opportunity to request this item be removed from the consent calendar. seeing no further public comment, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: commissioners, as i stated last week, this matter involves at&t, but i own a small number of at&t shares. i believe i fall under the small shareholder exception and don't have an interest as defined under the regs, but the regs are very fact specific, so i would, out of an abundance of

caution, like to recuse myself. >> clerk: commissioners, we should have a motion as there's some ambiguity as to commissioner tanner's -- >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i move to recuse commissioner diamond from this matter. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. on that motion to recuse commissioner diamond from this matter -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. commissioner diamond, you are so recused from the consent calendar. >> president koppel: commissioner moore. >> vice president moore: move to approve item 3 on our consent calendar. >> president koppel: second. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, on that motion to approve item 3 on your consent calendar -- [roll call]

. >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 5-0, placing us under item 4, consideration of adoption of draft minutes for september 23, 2021, commissioners, after your agenda was sent and your packet was released, we made abamendment to the minutes that were issued -- an amendment to the minutes that were issued to you on item 8, proposition of large residence developments where staff would work with impacted communities regarding outreach and density. we should open up public comment. commissioners -- or excuse me, members of the public, if you wish to speak to this item, you need to press star, three to be

added to the queue. seeing no additional or no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and the matter is now before you with that proposed amendment. do i hear a motion? >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> clerk: commissioner moore, you may be muted. >> president koppel: i didn't hear. did she say something? >> clerk: she did not, but i'm

thinking that my audio may not be working. >> vice president moore: i'm sorry. i was muted. i move to approve with the amendments read into the record. >> clerk: i think that commissioner tanner was going to make a motion. >> commissioner tanner: i was, but i offer her the blue angel to speak. >> clerk: thank you. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0, and places us on item 5, commission comments and questions. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: commissioners, this week, i believe we all received our letter, asking us to hold a

hearing for the demo calcs. for the two years that i've been on the commission, they've been persistent in raising this issue, and i'm wondering, director hillis, if it might be useful, now that section 317 -- i also hear the blue angels, and i'm going to pause for a minute and let them pass. i'm wondering if it might be useful, now that 317 has been in effect for a number of years, to step back and look at what the underlying policy goals were, what the experience has been, what's working, what's not working, and have a hearing that's broader than just revising the demo calcs and looking at the whole idea in general. i think it's a good idea, when

we adopt a new policy in practice, to have a hearing and see whether any broader amendments are necessary, and i was curious about your thought thought -- thoughts on that type of thing, as well. >> director hillis: i think for the eight years that i sat on the commission, miss schiutish has brought up those goals, as well. some of these issues have obviously come up, whether it's now or when we were doing the residential expansion threshold, which was about five years ago, but we do have some provisions under our belt. i think looking at miss

schiutish's questions, your question about the policy whether they're working as intended, is good. i think it'll take a bit to gather some information and have a meaningful discussion, and i think early next year, we can accomplish that. >> commissioner diamond: it seems like it takes a little bit of time, city department and planning, as well, so it would be useful to take a step back and see, if, how it's drafted, if it's working. >> director hillis: and obviously taking a lot of your time. there's a lot of these c.u.s on your calendar. happy to do that. >> commissioner diamond: thank you. >> commissioner imperial: i would also add -- >> president koppel:

commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: thank you. in terms of the discussion, for me, i would like to see the discrepancies between the d.b.i. and planning. there are a lot of issues that i still need for clarification, and i think it will be benefit for us as commissioners to understand those things. >> director hillis: sure. we can do that, as well. >> clerk: okay. if there's nothing further from members of the commission, we can move onto your next item, item 6, 2021-009977-crv, for consideration of remote hearings. commissioners, as per the city

attorney's office, we're looking to ton remote -- looking to continue remote hearings for the next 30 hearings. the governor has not extended his order but city hall is not open. if there are no questions or comments from any of you, we should hold public comment. members of the public, this is your time to enter public comment on this motion proposed for adoption and you need to press star, three. >> this is sue hester. >> clerk: oh, okay. >> this is sue hester.

i am pleading with the board, the planning commission, to schedule a public meeting on the 28, which is three weeks from now, which allows public to give testimony on this calendared item because remote hearings are extremely bad and frustrating to the public. we can't understand who is speaking, we can't hear them a lot of times, and so there has been various states proposed for getting back to city hall, and it was partly crippled by delta. and so if we -- it's real, then it might be beginning of november. we need to understand that. please do a presentation on the calendar and invite public hearing on the item. thank you very much.

>> oh, hi, it's georgia schiutish. good afternoon to you all. i would just say remote hearings, they're very difficult, and i don't know how much longer you're going to do it, but it would be nice if you can increase the time to speak. i think that would be helpful if you went back to the more traditional time that you allowed when you were in room 400 for all items for the public to speak. that would be more helpful. i don't know. i guess the other thing that i'll say is if you do go back, when you do go back, i think it's going to be critical if you do have the public there, if you don't it like the board of supervisors, where they're remote, that you put some t.v. screens out in the hallway so people aren't crowded in that room, 400, or in the overflow

room or somewhere just so that people can be separated. but any way, that's down the road. thanks a lot. bye. >> clerk: okay. last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed, and it is now before you, commissioners. but just very quickly, we received no indication as to when we will be able to resume in-person hearings in city hall. the only message we have received is that they may begin resuming in -- on november 1. i personally doubt that we will be occupying city hall for in-person hearings november 1, and it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't start until the new year, so for whatever that's worth. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i do have a question. thank you for the update,

secretary. i want to keep track on what's happening the last 1.5 years, but we don't really know until we get there. i'm just curious if your office or director hillis has received feedback on how remote hearings are going, and when we come back to in-person meetings, if we could keep some of the things that work, and we could have a conversation of public hearings going forward. i'm totally in support of this 30-day extension and until we can come back in person with a great deal of safety for ourselves and our public. there's possibly a whole new world opening up when we do come back and just wondering about comments or feedback from the public on these remote hearings. some people think they're great, and others, as we heard, don't think they work at all. >> clerk: yeah, i think we heard both sides.

i think the overwhelming majority that my office has is that they're working great. most people are actually quite surprised, including myself, at how effective they are, in sharing screens and presentations and all that sort of collaborative behind the scenes that needs to happen in order for it to work. certainly, there, we've experienced multiple technical glitches on our end as well as the public users' end, and i can certainly sympathize with people not familiar with pressing star, three and whether or not you can be audible. the tape delay associated with sfgovtv, if you're watching it on television and not streaming it, but i think the

overwhelming comments that my office has received have been positive. >> commissioner tanner: if there's no other comments, i would move to adopt the resolution, but i think director hillis had comments. >> second. >> clerk: okay. seeing no further comment, there is a motion to adopt the resolution. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, and thank you for all of your efforts in making this happen. moving right along, commissioners, department matters. item 7, director's announcements. >> director hillis: good afternoon, and commissioner tanner, i would have reiterated

what jonas is saying, about hearing the good things until we get back to city hall. i just wanted to mention a few so. a few dozen planning directors around the country, including myself, recently signed onto a statement that acknowledges the mistakes of the past recognizing that historic planning laws and policies have contributed to systemic racism and impacted quality of life for communities of color. the statement acknowledges this, but it also wanted to make a commitment on behalf of planning departments around the country in specific areas that we wanted to make change to create a more equitable future. the effort was led and staffed by our former director, john rahaim, and has a lot of

similarities to the motion that you passed last yearyear. originally 19 city planning directors signed on, and it's growing. it's being hosted out of the philadelphia planning department on their website, but they and all of us have invited other planning directors in cities, towns, regions. so i'll send you a link to the website where the statement is housed. i just want to thank director rahaim and all of the directors who signed onto this and support it had, so that's all i have. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, director hillis. there are no questions of the director, we can move onto item

8, for review of past events at the board of supervisors. there is no report from the board of appeals. the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, so there is a brief report from that. >> good afternoon, aaron starr. manager of legislative affairs. this year at land use, the committee took up use for chinatown and polk streets. i believe last week it was forwarded to the full board, but i was mistaken as it was continued because additional amendments were acted and it needed to sit for an additional week, and it was passed this week with full recommendation. this week, supervisor stefani's ordinance passed its first read as did the landmark designation for the eagle bar.

the appeal for the final mitigated declaration for 1525 pine street was continued to october 19. the appeal for the environmental review for 496 stevenson street was continued to october 26. the ceqa appeal for 35 ventura avenue was also continued to october 26. the board did take up the appeal for the final mitigated negative declaration for the project at 530 sansome. the project would demolish the existing fire station and construct a 218 foot tall building and four story replacement fire station. the project had two different proposals. one would be a hotel and one would be residential. on july 29 of this year, the commission held a public hearing on the merits and ultimately affirmed the department's decision to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. after the final m.n.d. was published, ryan patterson on

behalf of the appellant, 447 partners, l.l.c., filed an appeal of the mitigated negative declaration. there were three issues. one that the department did not provide notice of the m.n.d., two, that the description is not accurate, stable, or finite, and three, that the project will have an adverse effect on 447 battery, a historic resource. after the appellant's presentation, there were no members of the public who called in in support of the appeal. the project sponsor then presented their appeal, and two public commenters. supervisor peskin made a motion to deny the appeal. that was seconded by supervisor

mandelman, and that motion carried unanimously. because this appeal was heard last week, there was no public comment or presentations by the involved parties. supervisor haney made opening remarks and spoke about the concerns over the project changing from housing to group housing, but the tenderloin is already well served by group housing units, and what they decipher is more family housing. they also says disapproving the group project housing would not affect the ability to move forward with the original housing project. supervisor peskin gave similar, if not longer remarks, giving a very nuanced statement on the presentation, and supervisor ronen noted a growing trend of entitled project that are being significantly changed after the fact with very little process or consequence.

the board did ultimately vote 11-0 to overturn the planning department's decision and approve the project, and that concludes my report for today. >> clerk: thank you, mr. starr. if there are no questions for our legislative team, although -- okay. commissioner imperial? >> commissioner imperial: yes, i do have a question to mr. star regarding the 450 o'farrell regarding the comments of the supervisors. did they mention anything about group housing clarification or what they intend to result in this definition? >> they did -- thank you, commissioner. they did speak about the zoning administrator's interpretation and how they think it's being abused, and i think one of them, maybe ronen, mentioned that there needed to be some sort of legislative fix for the problem, so we'll look forward

to that. >> commissioner imperial: thank you. i'll see it, i guess, then. >> yeah. >> clerk: okay. seeing no additional questions for mr. starr, the historic preservation commission did meet yesterday, and similarly, as you just did, passed a resolution to extend their remote hearings. they also considered a certificate of appropriateness for a rear horizontal addition and front reconstruction to one of the painted ladies at 714 spinor street. at the front, the garage door was going to be removed for habitable space to replace the garage area and some reconstruction to the entry stairs. and after they approved the certificate of appropriateness,

the zoning administrator approves or indicated the intent to grant the variance, they considered the mills act with respect to the property, and did mention how the department is looking to expand the mills act or at least the opportunities to take advantage of the mills act for those that may be on the lower economic spectrum as opposed to what has been traditionally done by members who can afford properties to take advantage of the mills act. finally, they adopted a recommendation for approval to designate the casa sanchez building as a landmark.

if there's no further questions, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. when the number of speakers exceed the 15-minute limit, general public comment may be moved to the end of the agenda. members of the public, press star, three to enter the queue, and when you hear your system has been unmuted, that is your time to begin speaking. >> oh, hi, it's georgia schiutish. in response to what director

hillis said, i would just talk about a couple of the things that i said in the e-mails to you in public comment. in this time period, when you were talking about 317 reformed, putting in the flat policy, and you got rid of the demonstrative thing, i guess i feel a couple of months out isn't necessary. maybe to look at all of 317, sure, but in terms of just doing the demo calcs themselves, in that hearing of march 17, 2009, the commission said they were going to come back and look at the thresholds.

i think this is a tool you have, and you can adjust them, the commission can adjust them. i don't think you need to wait a few more months to see. certainly, you know i'm a pain, but that's okay because that's the way the process is supposed to be, i guess. so any way, thanks for bringing it up, and please read the e-mails and look at those hearings, especially the one in june 2015, because i think the issue isn't enforcement, it's prevention and preservation, and that's where adjusting demo calcs would go.

thanks a lot. have a good day. bye. take care. >> linda chapman. i must say, i must be cruel only to be kind. i am floored at the complete lawlessness that has come over the planning process. it is so different from when i was involved all the time, like, practically every week back in the 1970s and 80s when dean makras and bob passmore and the wonderful staff that are there. i really considered them to be on a par with federal service, any department, where, you know, even when mistakes were made, things that we had to go to court about and sue high-rises, at least they were in areas that were zoned for high-rises from mistakes that we made in rezoning. it wasn't like the planning code was thrown out the window.

it wasn't like everything was done anything, wouldn't you think i would have known there was an e.i.r. being prepared, considering i had called staff several times and talked to the people in charge? wouldn't you think i would have been able to get a copy at all, when the first time i knew was the public comments that i made. nobody could be more responsive than the secretary, but i still wasn't able to get a paper copy from staff. what is a person supposed to do? i sat at home that morning, thinking i'll pick it up by cab before i go to ucsf, where i can use the computers. that couldn't happen because

the planners couldn't get back to me when they did. the e.i.r. itself, when i started printing it, talks about the paper copy. at a certainly point -- at a certain point, i was exhausted after dealing with the lawless positions of the pine street process and then trying to help respond to the decision on the [indiscernible] street process. >> hi, commissioners. it's david [indiscernible] from pine point neighbors. i'll be addressing the stefani ordinance later, but first, if my slides could come up on the screen, i want to show once again how 16 street used to

look, and most of those signs are gone. i don't think any of those signs contributed to the city's unique character or their distinctive appearance. slide 2 indicates that slide clutter seems to be coming back. all of these signs are just in one-half block of spear street, and three more have already been improved. it's too much. the return of sign clutter is not acceptable. slide three shows the problem with awnings that are definitely getting out of control. slide four shows the outrageous installation of two 25-foot

high [indiscernible] rincon annex at the foot of mission street. if you look in the lower left, you'll see a pedestrian, and compare the person with the size of the sign, and there's two of those signs. it's a double planning atrocity, to put those on the side of a building. slide five is what reasonably sized awnings have look like. slide six is san francisco's unique look. slide seven is -- thank you very much.

>> hello. this is tess wellborn. i would like to say that we need to return to live meetings, and i would like to ask you to calendar a public discussion about live meetings approximately the middle of this month so that we can have that public discussion before you would even consider another 30 days. when we can have -- when we're supposed to be going to the theater and eating in restaurants, the idea that we cannot participate in public at city hall is rather difficult to digest. i would also like to see that number of times that planning commission and staff are not shown to be on the video, so we don't know what they are doing. they're not communicating with us by being visible, so those

two items are important. we need to have the public engaged, we need to be able to see each other and have the planning department engaged. thank you. >> good morning. this is [indiscernible] and we are very interested in the sign regulation, particularly projecting signs in [indiscernible]. i also feel it's very difficult to discuss something so visual over the phone, so i would also really welcome safe in-person meetings. thank you. >> hello. is this the time to make a

comment about business signs and awnings and marquis'? >> clerk: not yet. that's coming up right after this. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for general public comment -- oh, there's one more. go ahead, caller. this would be the time to make general public comment.

okay. final final last call for general public comment. you need to press star, three. go ahead, caller. >> oh, hi. this is stephanie peak with the san francisco land coalition. i just want to address the issue of the planning meetings being in person or whatever it's called, on zoom or whatever you're doing. our church does hybrid, and i don't see why you can't do that. why you can't be down at city hall with masks on, i guess, and also have people who are unable to come be able to be part of the meeting through zoom or whatever way you do it. thank you. >> clerk: okay. that concludes regular public

comment, and we can move onto your regular calendar, commissioners, for item 9, 2021-007327-pca, business signing on awnings and marquees. >> yes. [indiscernible] from the planning commission. miss donovan, whenever you're ready. >> clerk: miss donovan, i just pulled you out of listeners. >> thank you.

[indiscernible] for supervisor stefani in district 2? last year, we were made aware of a [indiscernible] in district 2 because of their business signage at the crux of this enforcement case and after discussions with the planning department, we understood that one of the issues i believe with the signage was that there was [indiscernible] on both sides of the business projecting sign and their awning. after researching this issue and seeing how other businesses have signage citywide, it seemed that this situation wasn't unique. there are about 400 businesses citywide that currently have sign copy on both their projecting sign and their awning. many of these businesses are in the city's cultural heritage

district, and after some discussion with the planning department staff and subject matter experts, the director wanted to move forward with a code change which would alleviate signage for about 400 businesses and allow them to have sign copy on projected signs and their awnings. without this change, many of these businesses are going to continue to be left vulnerable to enforcement cases brought upon them. enforcement cases are extremely costly. fines can be i think up to 100 per day. there's a lot of staff time involved with managing a case and working with a business and changing the signage on the businesses matter can be extremely costly. you know, a lot of these signs

do add to the uniqueness of our cultural district, and a lot of these signs have been in existence for decades. many of the businesses that we've talked to and worked with don't realize that this is even a rule, and that might be a function of the fact that this was originally passed in 94, and not many enforcement cases have been brought upon businesses since then. so with that, this legislation is upon your approval, upon the approval of the board of supervisors, or at the very least, provide a pathway forward for utilization for hundreds of businesses across the city. and with that, i'm looking forward to hearing your comments on the matter. thank you.

>> thank you, miss donovan. commissioners, the amendment would allow the business signs on marquees and the signs in chinatown or certain residential commercial districts where signage is not allowed. [indiscernible] which was the original intent of that 2019-2020 ordinance. just to make sure we're very clear, the ordinance would not change any existing dimension locations placed on signage, it would not alternate any existing signs on historic buildings, and it would not change any aspect of ordinance

136. the small business commission heard this item on september 13 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. additionally, the department heads received several commissions of public comment which are include index your packet as exhibit c. the department recommends the commission approves this ordinance with the following modifications. [indiscernible] residential enclaves. recommends modification two is to expand the small business month fee exemption to include [indiscernible] of existing signs and more [indiscernible] signs. right now, the exemption is very limited in scope.

the department supports the proposed ordinance with all staff recommended modifications because it removes an outdated provision of the planning code that is not only rarely followed but is also rarely considered a visual nuisance. the pandemic has made it difficult for small businesses to stay open, and this ordinance only adds to this difficulty. removing this will provide for a path to come into compliance without the business having to remove that signage. that concludes the presentation, and as miss donovan is, i'm also available for questions. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, audrey. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three to enter the queue. again, when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your

indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you will each have two minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is charles hadden. i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we are opposed to this legislation. we think that clutter will actually increase, so please vote against the stefani ordinance. thank you very much, and have a good day. bye. >> good afternoon, commissioners. george wooding, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. i am against any sign ordinance amendment. the current ordinance started in the mid 1990s, ordinance

219-94, has been excellent. what has not been excellent is the planning department's enforcement of the current sign ordinance and the proclivity of local businesses to take advantage of the planning department's lax enforcement. neither has been excellent. now planning wants to create amendments to makeup for their own shortcomings. there is no proof that these new cluttered signs will add any business to a local retailer. as stated in planning staff report, the extremely high 28% rates of noncompliance for this

specific provision of the sign relation, combined with the very low numbers of complaints filed leads staff to believe that amendments would be acceptable. illogical. fine the 28% and give the money to the general fund as planning does not certainly deserve it. quick response codes, digital storefronts, home deliveries, and the 1700-plus parklets that line our city streets are the new signs. no new sign ordinances, just better governance. thank you. zbh good afternoon, commissioners. my name is stephanie peak, and i am a member of the san

francisco land use coalition. i am a visual artist with many years of experience as a graphic designer. my studio design and produced our fair share of signs in san francisco for clients ranging from rockefeller properties to signage properties. the purpose of retail signage is to show customers where you are. over signage creates visual chaos. too many signs are like a shouting match for attention, very ugly, so i ask that you reject the proposal to increase the number of signs in san francisco. if the purpose is to increase signs in san francisco, it will not accomplish its purpose. the great artist matisse said, and i quote, if i put a black

dot on a sheet of white paper, the dot will be visible no matter how far away i hold it. it is a clear notation, but beside this dot, i place another one, and a third, and already, there is confusion, end of quote. please vote for clarity and beauty. we can do better. thank you. >> commissioners, david osgood again, rincon point neighbors. please oppose the stefani ordinance. it would only serve to reduce property values, ruin san francisco's unique character, including our wonderful cultural district's. the department's executive summary provides zero evidence

that this ordinance would support business. slide two illustrates projecting signs with awning signs. to show this, planning showed you an expensive french boutique. can my slides come up, please? -- an expensive french boutique that is not at all representative of a typical storefront because the awning is set back from the front of the building. i also want to show you what's more typical in san francisco. you look at the typical awnings. can anyone please tell me how blade signs hanging out overall of these awful awnings would

improve property values, the city's unique character, or its distinctive appearance. commissioners, i don't like to begin statements with the words you need to, but in this case, you need to reflect the work of your predecessors and activists who worked so hard for decades to rid the city of sign clutter. cities all across the country followed suit. do not undo decades of commendable hard work by allowing more sightly and redundant signage. thank you very much. >> hello. my name is martin true. i'm an architect and urban designer, and author of a book called signs, streets, and

storefronts that explored the relationship between signs and streetscapes as well as architecture. i'm also a charter member of the neon speaks symposium, and i believe that signs should be identification measures in the city. signs work very well for pedestrians but not well for even slow moving motorists. nor do they not work well for small businesses who rely on t.v. advertisements.

>> -- the neon restoration in the tenderloin has improved safety in the neighborhood. signs are effective for various local businesses, and we want to support quality signs for

our city. >> linda chapman. i'm thinking of nob hill and also the tenderloin and chinatown, my closest neighbors. i am very concerned, not about this ordinance, but about the reactions to the ordinance, that maybe we should just eliminate all kinds of signs, and i'm wondering whether the past regulations contributed a lot to eliminating a lot of the neon signs. i remember looking up polk street one time and thinking all of the neon was beautiful. you know, a neon sign is going

to be a blade sign usually, right? and also, a lot of stores could use two signs. they don't need a clutter of signs. they don't need a back lit sign and a neon and awning, but a neon attracts people that are up at the corner, and the awning tells what the store sells, like halal meat and produce. and if you have seating out, it protect -- seating outside, it protects you from the rain and from the sun. these always reminded me of the signs in japan where the

english translation was all mixed up, etc. i think, really, people sometimes aren't thinking about the fact that there's a difference between horrible clutter and having like one sign that's vertical and an awning. you know, that's not visual clutter for the merchant, and it may be necessary. >> clerk: thank you, miss chapman, for that, and please be advised that staff will be reaching out to provide you a copy of the sutter street draft environmental comment report and extend the public comment period to allow you to submit your comments on that. [please stand by]

. >> -- sign in different neighborhoods, there's no doubt in my mind and so many people that take our neon walking tours and attend our international neon and signage history projects that signs soak up local culture. they're just like sponges, and businesses need to reach pedestrians and motorists. there's nothing wrong with letting people a block away

know what's happening in the commercial area. we really advocate for more access to the area, particularly when it allows a business to retain a historic sign and then [indiscernible] for how the business may have changed. thank you very, very much for the opportunity, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak publicly about this. >> hi. tess willborn, district 5. there are many business owners that are not back to normal,

and they will never be back to normal, and they are not going to be purchasing additional signs. the ones that will be benefiting from this will be the big businesses. i thank supervisor stefani for this dilapidation of enforcement of the current ordinance, and then, you can propose other things. what they need right now is business. they don't need signs, another expense. thank you. >> yes, hi. this is kristin evans from the haight-ashbury merchant association. i know this legislation doesn't

currently address the issues that we've had in our particular commercial corridor, but i wanted to raise it as a possible amendment. there has been apparently a number of complaints probably by one person against signs that have been existing in the community for years, and as the previous caller mentioned, the businesses are really struggling to make ends meet. with haight-ashbury in particular, we really have a reliance not just on residents' traffic but on traffic in general, and some areas have not recovered. some businesses, like the piedmont boutique, with the famous legs, were told they had to address issues with their awnings or even above the transom windows. these are things that have been

around for 20, 30 years for something that has come around in the last week or so, but these signs have been around for decades. my suggestion is to give merchants additional time to ameliorate the issue or give them additional time to purchase more signs. thank you. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, last call for public comment on this item. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and it is now before you, commissioners.

>> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: hopefully, no [indiscernible] will interrupt me. i'd first like to clarify that this is not about neon signs. i'd like to thank supervisor stefani and miss donovan and miss merlone for having put this legislation together. for starters, i'd like to say that i agree with the intent of the legislation which [indiscernible] primarily based on the complaints you have received and the observations you've made in the field. what's not clear, and maybe there's a message for planning

staff, and if they're deemed nonconforming, [indiscernible] i want to just step back. i want to acknowledge all labeled groups. i believe the many points made by san francisco neighborhood. san francisco regulation of general advertising signs and business signs have been very successful over the years. this has been a very grassroots and effective effort, but what is a powerful reminders is to

look at the before and after photos provided this afternoon. what we have now is calmed down, more organized, and i think it has mostly kept our neighborhood corridors differentiated but more attract tiff. i do disagree with planning staff that these ordinances were meant to increase property value. i think that is not the case. regulating signage is first and foremost eliminating clutter, and i think we should be proud

in san francisco that we have eliminated or prohibited sidewalk [indiscernible] and generally the type of advertising for business signage which is at issue today. i am supportive of waiving fees, and this is the right time to do it, and the commission and myself have supported particularly during the pandemic waiving of fees, but i do not want to use the pandemic to undo decades of regulations that have been in place. instead, i would like to propose a compromise, perhaps something that came out of my

conversations with neighborhood leaders over the past couple of weeks and structure something like an amnesty or grandfathering provision, so the business can predate the date of this ordinance and also that their signage predated this ordinance. for the 300 or 400 or so businesses surveyed by supervisor stefani's office, it would leave them with a way to conform. while i think 300 or 400 businesses sound like a lot, that's actually a very small

fraction of businesses in our neighborhood commercial corridors, and removing this regulation altogether would open up all flood gates. if we move forward with this amnesty provision that i mentioned, [indiscernible] ten or so complaints about this issue. again, just because the complaints are few and far between does not mean that the value of these regulations is meaningless. we should not be blaming small businesses. the problem is that city staff have implemented these regulations unevenly over the years. i think one of our public

commenters said no new signage public ordinances. so that is my proposal, and i would like to make a motion to approve this ordinance subject to that modification. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: i just wanted to ask commissioner moore if you could repeat the parts of your motion in terms of -- i understood kind of the amnesty provision, but going forward -- could you just repeat it just so i can make sure i heard what you were proposing correctly? i don't know if you're there, commissioner moore.

perhaps while we're waiting for commissioner moore to come back -- >> vice president moore: i'm sorry. i had my -- i had my mute button up. >> commissioner tanner: okay. no worries. >> vice president moore: it would keep the regulation in place, and any other compliance signs would now be deemed nonconforming, but the amnesty provision or grandparenting provision, i'm picking up on mr. starr's carefully revised wording, so if any complaint is filed against the business for being not in compliance or nonconforming, but other subsequent business that would buy into this particular space would be charged with bringing them into conformity. >> commissioner tanner: thank you for that. >> vice president moore: i think that is the most sensitive path, given where we

are with small businesses, and i believe the ordinance at this moment is too heavy handed and not profitable. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you for stating that for me. i did have a few questions for staff and wanted to understand, miss merlone and wanted to understand if a business could have just an awning and no projecting signs. like, would that permit be approved to have an awning and a projecting sign if it has no writing on it? >> correct. that is absolutely correct. an awning without any verbiage on it or writing on it would be permitted for construction, so a business could have a blanks awning, so long as it meets our directional requirements, and a projecting sign.

>> commissioner tanner: so that's where i totally hear you, commissioner moore, and i align myself with the idea of reducing visual clutter and certainly not adding more visual clutter, and the work that the city has done grassroots to try to reduce visual clutter and also other work not related to this visual ordinance and keep some of the fun and interesting thing that's connect places to a path even if that location is not -- things that connect places to a path even if that location is not connected to the awning. i just wonder how much visual clutter is adding the wording on the awning if both are allowed? and that's why i kind of feel a little bit silly, almost, with

an awning with that word, because if an awning has words now, it's not allowed. miss donovan, could you just share a little bit of the word that you did, you or supervisor stefani's office, how you went about documenting this or whether it was prevalent in the handful of each of the neighborhood districts that you visited? >> yeah, so we did a survey via google maps street scenes. that seemed to be the most convenient way of going out surveying our district, and businesses with signage that were out of compliance were predominantly located in -- with the richmond, in the sunset, in chinatown, so those are more likely than not a lot of immigrant owned businesses

that have been there for decades. i think in district two, we only had about 20 businesses that were out of compliance altogether, and i think the supervisor agrees with what you stated, you know, they can have a physical sign, they can have a blank awning with a projecting sign with their sign copy on it, and to say that they are now out of compliance if their business name happens to be on both. -- on both, that doesn't sit well with them. we did contemplate an amnesty policy on this issue when we first contemplated the code change, but considering how much staff time an amnesty

program does take, particularly when we've seen other amnesty programs, and they take quite a significant amount of time away from staff being able to focus on other -- on other things [indiscernible]. >> commissioner tanner: that's very helpful and it's leading to the questions that i wanted to ask planning staff, an amnesty program, just me thinking about it now, it would seem we would need these folks to say, i'm out of compliance, which i'm assuming many folks don't know they're out of compliance now, and then documentation to note what's at that site at this current moment. that would be then legal nonconforming. is that correct? i see some nods. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. that's a great point. we considered an amnesty

program with commissioner stefani when they were gracious enough to include us in this before it came to commission. i think beyond the issue of the staff time, because if it's a worthy cause, we will dedicate the staff time, but not only would it take the business coming forward and outreach to let businesses know that this is an issue that they should come and have legalized, but also, these controls were put in place in the 1990s. our satellite imagery, google street view, things like that, they didn't exist. we don't have access generally to anything before 2002, in terms of satellite images of the city, and so the burden would fall on that property owner or that business owner to somehow prove that their awning existed before the regulations

of the 1990s? and then, we get into the nuances of if the awning was changed, as well. is it no longer considered the original awning as it existed? there's a lot of issues that come into an amnesty program that would make this a fairly heavy burden for staff. >> commissioner tanner: the other question i have as i'm hearing this concern, will the flood gates open and everyone now have awning and a projecting sign? oh, i can have an awning with a projecting sign on it? again, i see that extremely negative if the situations also

occur, and i'm also sensitive to this burden of proof that would fall on the businesses. and further, if they can't prove it, we've got a bunch of enforcement cases that we're asking businesses to takedown signage. in a situation where we've got ten complaints a year, and now we are actually actively proactively enforcing. i hear the comment about good governance, but i think it's important to think a lot of how the city works is complaint-based. we don't typically drive around the city looking at places that are noncompliant with codes and write complaints or notices of violation and seek compliance with our codes, and amnesty compliance almost seems like that, that we are requiring them to come forward to prove that they had their sign before a certain period of time or to take that down.

i think that move is the opposite direction of the ordinance and in opposite direction of -- >> vice president moore: commissioner tanner, may i interrupt for a second? >> commissioner tanner: yes. >> vice president moore: the grandparenting clause i was proposing only pertains to this ordinance and nothing else. the grandparenting would only start with the beginning of this ordinance, whenever we set that date, so no additional -- no additional work, that's correct. >> commissioner tanner: okay. >> vice president moore: it's basically grandfathering within grandfathering. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i don't know if anyone else has any additional questions. 1994, that's a long time, and i

think that just diminishes the staff work. i don't know if there's any comments from the supervisor or staff office from that. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. thank you for that, commissioner moore. you know, i think we would still -- our preference would be to change the code rather than to have an amnesty program. you know, the burden of coming into compliance or grandfathering the businesses into compliance, the burden of proof still seems like it would still be somewhat of a barrier i think also for new businesses who would enter the space, for them to bear the responsibility of conforming the existing signage to the existing rule. that also seems to me to be quite a heavy burden and lift,

particularly, you know, where i -- i have a better understanding of, like, how much of the cost to correct for that, so i -- i don't think that that would be our preference. [indiscernible]. >> yes, thank you, commissioners. exactly what i was going to say. i'd love mr. teague to step in on the zoning side of that. >> yeah. good afternoon, commissioners. corey teague, planning department staff. i think it would just be a change to the zoning regulations to be a little bit more liberal. even any business right now that is part of a complaint or not part of a complaint, and they want to take advantage of

these new more flexible provisions, they'll need to get a permit to do that. and similarly, any nonconforming right now, any nonconforming signs that's existing right now, technically, if there was a complaint, they would need to come in -- sometimes, they may have a sign that does not meet the requirement, and there's a complaint, and ultimately, they'll need to get a permit for a sign that does meet the controls. if we did any kind of amnesty program at all, it gives an opportunity for businesses to come in and take advantage of that, but they would still need to come in and get a permit for a sign that met some specific type of provision, so i think it's just kind of helpful to keep that framework in mind.

again, there's still businesses that have to come in. any time there's a new business sign that comes up, and a new business comes in, maybe it changes from joe's t-shirts to amy's cup cakes, whatever it may be, same space, same projecting sign, that actually requires a permit, so the kind of burden of a new business is always going to be there, even under the new current code, and of course, we just have a lot of businesses in the city, and some may not be aware. we obviously have a business portal on-line that tries to give as much information on permitting, and signage permits is a part of that. we've had presentations before

the small business commission, as well. so there's always some universe of businesses that either purposely or just out of lack of knowing are going to, you know, have these signs and incur those costs without going through the sign permit process. >> commissioner tanner: okay. i will ask you a few questions. in the visual survey that you did, miss donovan, at the kind of top-of-your-head level, the incidents of awning and projecting signs versus one or the other, i think the concern would be triggering a bunch of additional clutter -- oh, now that i can have two signs, i'm going to do two, so maybe it's not something that's out of the norm from what you were seeing in your visual survey. >> this doesn't seem to be something that was out of the norm in the commercial corridors, and we just surveyed the existing m.c.d.s and

m.c.t.s. the 400 businesses that i mentioned earlier, all of those have a projecting sign and an awning with sign copy on it. there are, you know, businesses that do have projecting signs and -- and awnings with sign copy only on one, you know, but that didn't seem to be too prevalent. the businesses that we -- yeah. was that helpful? >> commissioner tanner: yeah. and the last question that i have is going to be for staff. i guess i can ask it if i recall it, but those are my questions regarding this proposal. >> and commissioner tanner, if i could just also clarify one additional thing, i just want to make sure it's clear that just because these businesses that the supervisor's office surveyed had a projecting and an awning sign does not mean

that the dimensional limitation that we would continue to enforce, that the size and the amount of sign copy would change, and so there are probably still many businesses that, even through the passing of this ordinance, if it were to pass as constructed, would need to alter their signs in some way, shape, or form to come into compliance. under the grandfathering program, they would be able to keep their existing signs. >> commissioner tanner: the additional districts that the department is recommending beyond what the supervisor did, that gave me a little pause. on one hand, i did understand if we're going to do it for some, essentially, more businesses should be allowed if the purpose is to help folks be in conformance, but it seems like other areas cover larger

swaths, and it's not-like a core -- it's not, like, a corridor, it's a neighborhood. could you speak at all to that, if you have any concerns about adding larger areas to the areas covered by this legislation? [please stand by]

>> this has been erased.

>> i'm looking at who is going to business from this. what businesses are going to business from this. there there be for in soma and the downtown area. i don't see how it's going to immigrant owned businesses and we should be pen penalized instead. you need to be careful.

who is going to again fit from those and who is not going to fen fit. >> it's not just saying that it's the cultural district but there needs to do it and perhaps there's a a it would be fixed instead of chairvegging or amenned the planning code. >> good enough. it's not going to benefit immigrant owned businesses. those are my comments for now.

>> your thoughts have something i feel i need to share with the rest of the commission. she mentioned that sheriff study was found. she is veryselfful too. the signage you're talking about and possible consequences and clutter is what i would mention particularly because our excrete scape. signage is not perceived in any way more now than it was before. it was seriously inpacted by the presence of shared space

structure

.>> better governance you can throw away at anytime.

finding compliance with one thing. >> what would happen to businesses with signs that don't need directional coordinates. >> : we would not have a pathway towards legalization. confirm the fact if the orderrance were to be adopted as

it were opposed what would happen to business ordinances. >> : they would have to come into complying. >> this is just an awning and how governance can solve this problem. >> let me get through my questions.

>> one is what to do with what is is not in compliance, two is if we allow going forward to allow one of the only two sif two systemsigns that have two gg forward. it creates a great professional provider. i would not want to change that or grandfather it in.

for people who kurnly need both an awning sign and direction axe sign. i'm fine with both being able to have their signs. if they want a marquee or -- i think i would like to see for myself how that maintains the appearance of a block. mark it up and show everybody on that block could add the separate sign so we could see

visually what it looks like. i'm reluctant. i might very well be fine about it. if every on a block before we decided to allow that to proceed. i don't have enough of an emergenciation to see what that would be. >> i was trying to be very careful not to call out specific businesses or neighborhoods that may be out of compliance because if this ordinance does not pass,

they are being called out for enforcement action. our enforcement is done reactively via complaint based. we don't have inspectors talking about down treats on page seven of your staff report. i know it's not a full street few but i found an example in georgetown and walked down streets inside of the city virtually and especially where the sign controls might be more restrictive. it's not a building in. it's a building in washington

dc. on the left hand side of that little building there's a proprojecting sign.

>> you have clutter. it's not currently an awning. they are adding or projecting

signs because that is great enough to do both if that is poorly, if done elegantly it could be nice. the fire men are trying to add an element to it so as not out of size.

on was on gookle maps and trying to see if there were more awnings along this street. how a grandfathering provision helps aid -- we don't have a

lot of compliance about it as well. many folks have felt harmed enough to report that there's so many clutter in their neighborhood or m p d. >> currently now businesses can have signs on their awnings, depending on the district i want to be clear on that in terms of what is permitted today.

>> i had pushed my button. you may not have seen that. i just wanted to clarify only address the sign and not the dimension. the idea for compliance to non

confirming.

>> i believe people are making the assumption on what, worst case scenario under the current rule. everyone has an awning with a sign on it and we're adding the signing onto the awning. >> everybody goes to the maximum for what we can do. >> anything can help so they have a sense of what they were trying to brother me. >> i appreciate the conversation, we kept the same conversation internally.

how many existing business are out of compliance with this on the scale of law. there are a lot of san franciscans walking around thinking there's too much signage and visual clutter on our visual corridors. corridors.>> i move we continueo weeks and reconsider. >> to do a time limit of that, we have to have a certain number of time. >> the ordinance expires on the following tuesday. before a two week. >> i would move for it to be one

week. >> make sure the streets you're choosing are on store fronts and frequency and density in san francisco. >> it may be tough to put something together but we'll try. >> (roll call).

>> we'll be posting the slide show for folks. good afternoon. i'm the director of city wide policy. the environmental framework and next item after it will result in updating the general plan. our broader effort. today i'll give you a high level

summary with more to come on november 4th. our local charter for san francisco's community. the general plan is addressed to topics and policy. you can see the highlights in orange and mandated topics. only the nine mandated f and other discretionary topics today. commerce industry, arts.

here we have when each of these last updated. out side of the housing and safety elements, the record open space element in 2014. this commission and your staff have been very busy setting policy to other areas of the plan. these plan led the nation in area displacement. twenty areas to decontrol density and reestablished area

plans turning our eye to the larger city work. why now? the need to adapt our housing policies our local general plan address if had this racial and social equity. you too are asking. those are the items that are

critical components of our modernizing critical plan. now with lisa.

>> my apologies. i'm going to reshare my screen. before i begin i wanted to acknowledge our agency partners. we've been working with a varianty of agencies, all of which have had long standing

environmental programs. this presentation will cover two main coppices, the background and context of this work. our community engagement plan. before we get into the project specifics, we fell it was important by explaining what we mean by environmental justice. we see our working definition which we continue to get feedback. the equityible distribution where all san franciscans can

fly. we're not just talking about a very important consideration. we're trying to think about how to support people's health due to our legacy of racism they are disopposed to propotionately - this slide has some trends here in the city. we have asthma, covid, i'm not going to read them all out for you. countless other indicators that

would be separated be race, income, across the city. back to this project and why envinemental justice right now. the main driver has been senate bill 1000 requires the cities to do a couple things. whether we have disadvantaged communities in our jurisdiction. this is meant to be adopted by this commission centering around

the work around racial and equity. in response a framework a policy document that outlines a key vision for envinemental justice in san francisco. almost like a work plan that will be embedded, we wanted to make sure it was not siloed or nip other major development updates. we're still relatively early in the process. the next couple slields will

dpif you a preview. we focused a lot of our analysis most effected by environmental justice. you can see it on the state map on the thumb nail on the right. california health hazards. we chose to go above and beyond because the feedback we received

that doesn't reflect a range of challenges. it's paced on clean data but will use local data on dem dpraffic. the areas in the darkest red color have the greatest health burden down to green. you do see large parts of the southern, china town, we'll be continuing to refine this map and have an updated version for adoption. this slide previews the

frameworks of sb1000. pollution, food access, public surveys, public services. we added economic development namely equity and clean jobs. the last part of the presentation will be p how to get involved and provide input. at a fundlettal level. one key levels that are most

impacted need to be essential in identify need relationships and collaboration. we need to be mindful of participation achieved. so many of these communities are dealing with these threats. it makes the best use of our resources and time. we don't want this to take a long time. some of these have been completed while others are under way and planned. most are really highlighted in in the ej working group.

city staff and community mappers. we put our time in this process. p we have an assort sment of out reach events. focus groups, surveys, and those one on one events. this is a mixed group of broaj. we co-development and identify goals and priorities for the city. you have a copy of the city for the grid. i'm going to pry to ensure and

in order to to really honor the time p, they come from a range of agencies to the impacts of environmental justice. they meet monthly. they have sub groups. a lot of work and energy that have already been eninvested in this process. this shows the time line for our work. we still have a lo of siting opportunities to come including

the focus groups. concludes staff's presentation. gentleman thank you. we should move onto pub lek comment. at this time if i wish to make public comment press star three to be added to the queue. seeing no requests to speak on this item public comen is closed. this is not an action item. it is just for your consideration. jo great work everybody.

grad to see we're dor tg everything we can to move these policies around. >> from the youth gaugement. is there a chance to expand it. from your experience. maybe you can elaborate on that. >> thank you. we've been really pleased to leverage our existing relationships with schools. we show this p topic, we have

worked with mal om x elementary school. especially during covid. we felt it was difficult to start with new schools and have been focusing on our prior relationships. we're definitely hope to hearing from other communities. because of owrp school system we had had people coming from paull

the city. about capacity building and strengths they see in their neighborhoods. providing their recommendations to a panel of city staff in a final presentation. >> the planning department has i'm wondering if that is something that is being complimented. i think it is challenging to do this out reach of times of the pandemic when schools are virt yawl.

virtual. it's a big chal earning with the planning an the virtual. are you guys doing it in virtual typesettings. in terms of engaging. >> because of the timing. the elementary and middle school p. gentleman thank you very much. thank you for this presentation again. p. >> the hope is to move away from

the virtual. it was helpful for us and for the students who's participated. we want to ramp up the in person aspect of this when we can. >> thank you for presentation. could you help us understand what you might expect to see the aspects of the elements coming forward. thinking about tree plant pg and prioritize them in other expect as part of this element for the

framework, i guess. >> that's an excellent question. we are really listening to what we hear from community members through our other out reach. this isn't a process where city is coming with fast policies and getting feedback. we're asking for help with codeveloping these. i definite lism see something

like pruning being a priority. we are starting to see some of these through the purple dpreup. we have some ideas but can't specify what it will be yet. j i want to under score if the life expectancies. we're talking about people's lives and we have communities that to this day have toxic soil and con tame nate the ground and

are driving through our cities. we're not done yet by any means. as climate continues it impact us it to your knowledges the need or to think about these communities and how with can make sure an advancer for them. a mapping exercise you all did, what aspects did you add to it thal viro mapping. what aspects did they look at that maybe be didn't include p. >> i'm going to pass that whog

helps me with mapping. >> for the map that we entrepreneur pd. we added three other data sets. one was a prosecution zone from public health. income data. state guidance asked us to identify areas of higher income from lower income areas. the third area of data set from

vul ner nltability. we thought it was important to capture people of color community. a lot of of the areas, those burdens are four dit awe sets that pp pp. >> okay commissioners, if that concludes commissioner comments. >> they are really part of the

work. we look forward to coming back to you with specifics on those. gentleman indeed. through the chair there is a member of the public requesting to speak. should we take that caller. >> yes. >> two minutes. >> i'm the director of environmental justice adadvocat. some of you know me coming to the planning department for 30

year years. here under san francisco we need a lot to do with realtime dailt awe in the carbon foot principle p. or forth and king i you have over five hundred methane gas spewing into the air. we kept sky scrapers. you just don't build scai

scrapers. you use aggregate and kn greet. our children and those that come frm myself. the ranking department knows this but does nothing about it. we also use a lot of water. the main iceberg which gave the water thasm noach accept reech reduced.

let's not speak in pp p pp -- our planning department has a lot of plaw blah blah. >> thank you, sir. that concludes public comment for this item 11 connect sf san francisco's planning program. this is also a presentation.

>> good afternoon commissioners. i'll be talking to you about the transportation element of the general plan. our department is embarking on a transportation element. transit neutral freeways

>> these are the areas of the policy we covered. on the left-hand side, we have specified topics that we want to see in a transportation -- in addition, we will include other areas of transportation that are important to san francisco, and those [indiscernible] for example, in the transportation

technologies, we will be [indiscernible] and other emerging mobility. next slide. next slide, please. [indiscernible] primarily the planning department, sfmta and sfcta. here, i want to acknowledge and thanks staff who have been

consistent partners in this work we have been doing together. we are looking at major investment and policy strategies for people to spend time in san francisco now, today, and in the future. next slide, please. this slide gives an overview of the comprehensive components of the [indiscernible] program. our first [indiscernible] is that san franciscans want to see. it was developed in an extensive community outreach program in 2016. next [indiscernible] land use and transportation master plan

[indiscernible]. >> next slide. thank you, tam. thank you, and good morning -- good afternoon, commissioners. thank you to lisa and annemarie for that great introduction and important kind of critical background as we take on this work. as tam mentioned, there were two key components of the last phase of connect s.f. around the transit system and around the trees and freeways. the city's transit system is in desperate need of updated and modernization and the study following on the connect s.f.

vision was led by sfmta in partnership with planning and sfcta. obviously, the key for us is to try to make sure that the plan and strategies are well aligned with the city's transportation master plan. next slide, please. the transit strategy has five key recommendations which were present today the sfmta board earlier this summer. focus on improving the performance of the existing system, taking any forward to the next level with a five-minute bus network that would be spread further across the city, improvements on the existing rail system, and then,

an improvement on a select number of rail plans where the bus system is not sufficient. next slide. just to highlight a couple of the strategies on the transit work that's been done. the five-minute network is a new idea, and it's meant to modernize and improve the transit system with the idea of putting buses on the system every five minutes that are faster, and managing an improved rail network. this is absolutely critical to serve the people who spend time in san francisco both today and in the future. purpose would be fast, frequent, and reliable, and transfers at last would be much easier than they are today, given the higher levels of

frequency. this is primarily a service plan, and sfmta, sfcta, and planning will be working on together. if we implemented a service without making the necessary street improvements as we've seen in the emergency transit lanes, those buses would be stuck in traffic, missing the opportunity to get passengers from point a to point b. next slide. to complement the five-minute bus and rail network, there are

several [indiscernible] rather than one that's just based on speed or convenience. these are the places where new rail is going to be essential, and you can see there's a route for the geary and 14 corridor. there's the new transbay rail crossing as well as extend being the central subway all the way to fisherman's wharf and possibly yand, and -- beyond, and finally restoring the service to the bayview, and for those that don't remember, the polk station was removed

almost 20 years ago, and the city is eager to bring that station back. so right now, you can see that these are just relatively thick lines on the map, even though we might have a good idea of where they need to go. each of these will need to embark on a detailed planning process and design process, and we look forward on bringing information on those back to you in the future. next slide. the partner study to that was the study that was being led by sfcta on the streets and freeway strategy. next slide. that slide came up with a suite of recommendations somewhat similar in a way i think to each of the transit strategy that focus on maintaining and investing in the current system and also seeking to ensure that

those improvements are more resilient to climate change, sea level rise, flooding, as well as the needs of all the different users of the street. we need to make better use, as noted in particular, on our surface, on our roads, continuing to prioritize transit access and speed. we need to promote walking and biking across the city while prioritizing safety. and also, look for opportunities to repair harm and reconnect communities that were harmed by past transportation infrastructure. in particular, there's been a lot of discussion about

opportunities to revisit historic projects around freeways, expressways, but also really high quality effective urban greening and food traffic, as well. next slide. just as a reminder, if we all are deeply aware of the role that those express way projects play across situation, here's the route that rips right across the fillmore, and in the future, represents an amazing way for the city to reconnect

and reknit this party of the community back together. with that, we'll go ahead and move onto the next slide. for the transportation element, as we look at wrapping up this -- these -- the current work around transit streets and fridays, we'll be moving that content, along with other new content from -- into the transportation element. as mentioned at the top, we have had a number of points of contact already with the public around the transportation element specifically, but also a few years of heavy engagement with the public on the connect s.f. park and work. the development of the policies in consultation with the commission will be weighed heavily on the [indiscernible]

window with us shifting arguably the development of the implementation plan therefore, and that is where we really expect to see necessary code changes both at planning and potentially for san francisco municipal transportation agency, as well, to ensure that we can speed the critical policies and projects that we need. you'll see that there is an appropriately fuzzy green bar as it relates to our environmental review which we are still working on our approach to -- and securing necessary funding to make that happen. next slide. and it's important to note that both the transportation element and connect s.f. notes are not

separate impact as lisa mentioned, even though the transportation work in the environmental element has shaped the work of connect s.f. and the active work of our partners, but we see that as one of many critical inputs. planning staff have been critical also in developing content for the environmental action plan. again, many of the policies and recommendations will be flowing directly into the new transportation plan. i think it's also really important to note that we're -- not here today is a housing element, and we are working actively with that team to ensure that the integrated policies that both complement each other and that our

analysis is supportive of each of those so that the city can meet its goals around housing affordability, racial equity, but also greenhouse gas reduction, as well. with that, i think the final slide is to let us know what comments and questions you might have, and we look forward to seeing you in the months ahead. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes staff presentation, we should open it up for public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission by pressing star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that is your indication to begin speaking. through the chair, you'll each have two minutes. >> first and foremost in san

francisco, we have to pay attention that san francisco is a hilly city. at one time, we had 52 hills. now we talk about congestion pricing, something that works in large cities, like england -- or london, but we have not addressed the flow of our traffic as it exists today in san francisco, from east to west, west to east, north to south, south to north. it has to be drastically changed. they give that presentation, and they have no clue that at

one time, the transportation light rail was supposed to be implemented on geary street, but they dumped it on 3 street. the 3 street starts on fourth and king to middle of visitacion. makes no sense. it should have been corrected directly to balboa, so if they're spending a lot of money on the third street light rail, it's time for us to connect it to balboa, which makes a lot of sense. now during this pandemic, we should have real data on the millions or the thousands of tons of particleates --

particulates, but we still see levels of congestion on market street, but we still need better trains, better buses -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. that is your time. members of the public, this is your last call for public comment on this item. you need to press star, three to be added to the queue. seeing no additional requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is now closed, and this item is now before you, commissioners. this is also an informational presentation, not an action item. >> president koppel: commissioner fung? >> commissioner fung: for

staff, i had two questions. one relates to a number of fairly detailed studies, although they may be quite old, such as the geary street rapid rail study that was done probably in the 90s, but a lot of money was spent. is there any value to some of those old studies that may be part of what the transit element wants to be?

>> yeah [indiscernible]. >> do you have any other questions? >> commissioner fung: yeah.

the second question would be if you look at some of your diagram, and it correlated to the areas that are undergoing the greatest change, which is predominantly the east side, a number of quite large projects that extend over the east side of the city, there were quite a few probably not only transportation and transit analysis for those areas and individual projects, but also a number of policies with respect to the citywide policies.

are those abeing somehow incorporated into what the new element wants to be? >> yes, they will be. one of the slides that we presented shows that the [indiscernible] was last updated in 1 # 9 #, so a lot has happened in the last 25 years, as you can imagine. the current transportation ordinary thanks, if you read it today, it's [indiscernible] walking, biking, and so forth, but there's so much that has happened in our city since then. it includes our plans for sfmta and includes our plans for other items, so yes, they are

going to be factored into the new transportation element. >> commissioner fung: okay. i understand things change, and perhaps approaches will also say. it's interesting to see -- approaches will also change. it's interesting to see a policy, and it's a point that people should be aware of, when they're making new policies. >> and may i add that for the transportation policy

[indiscernible] but that the city should be prepared for when those things come on-line. >> commissioner fung: agreed, and my last -- just a comment is, you know, in our discussions on the housing element, one of the things that resonated quite one with the commissioners and probably a lot of the public was we want to see greater density along the transit corridors. that probably will require some further definition, but if you take the geary corridor or a

couple of other -- the sunset corridor, things that have a significant land use correlation to whatever the transportation element shows. >> you are talking exactly why [indiscernible] was formed [indiscernible] we were working with the housing element to see that housing element [indiscernible]. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you for your comment. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial?

>> commissioner imperial: thank you, and thank you, commissioner fung, for looking at the previous analysis that have been done before that i'm not aware and perhaps i should dig on those previous transit analysis. i did and was actually surprised that the last transportation analysis was back in 1996, and a lot has changed since then. i do have a question about the downtown congestion pricing. this is a new idea, and i believe it's something that's only being implemented in london right now, and so can you elaborate more on the downtown congestion pricing. where did this come about and what is the basis for the congestion pricing, and also,

how are car sharing projects, like uber and lyft, and how is that being addressed in the downtown congestion pricing? >> i'll go ahead, tam, on that one. the san francisco county transportation authority is the board of supervisors transportation group, it's doing a study currently on congestion pricing. this, i believe, is the second or third study on congestion pricing that they've done since, i think, going back about ten years where they've been looking at different congestion pricing options for the city. there are a number of cities that do already have congestion pricing globally. singapore, stockholm, london, among others.

new york city is slated to get its system up and running within the next 12 months, but i will -- i'm happy to direct you to vast volumes of information available on that project offline. i think as it relates to the question of ride share companies, uber and lyft, there is going to be analysis done i'm sure as part of a congestion pricing study, but there's also a group of staff -- pam and selena -- participate very actively in

the t.m.c. citywide, and we will be presenting those to the commission hopefully in the coming months. >> commissioner imperial: and that analysis, is it being done in a more citywide level or -- okay. >> and i imagine -- but i haven't seen it yet, but i imagine for the congestion pricing study, that analysis will be done, the effects of congestion of the ride share companies, and different options that they might employ. >> commissioner imperial: and that will be part of the transportation element? >> yeah, we do see congestion as one of the near term options

improving traffic congestion in the downtown area, but it is a difficult program to successfully implement, and it's not without its challenges, and the m.t.a. is working to ensure that that program is done with a high agree of engagement outside the corners. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, and i'm interested to see how it's going to be part of the transportation element. thank you. >> you bet. thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. thank you very much, staff. excellent work, and thank you for the excellent presentation, and thank you, commissioner

fung and commissioner imperial, for your questions, as well. i wanted to ask you if you had any kind of comment on the connection between transportation investment, any kind of potential displacement that could happen? i think one of the things that we're concerned about are restoring communities and transportation is often one of the highest costs after housing, so any time we can provide transportation at a lower cost than owning a vehicle is a win for families in san francisco, and at the same time, as we're restoring transit, we're bringing opportunities to families, and it can be seen in terms of real estate values as a plus, and that can be higher rental prices, higher home prices for the housing there. and it also means that the city can be part of that

conversation whether it's that or land bank to secure that, as well, so i wonder if you could talk about how you're thinking about it and some of those strategies. it's before the station plans have even been drawn up in any earnestness that we would be able to secure affordability or expand services and affordability. anything that you can tell us about how you've begun to approach that challenge? >> [indiscernible] in terms of

what we're doing proactively to address that, we did put together some research not only in san francisco but around the country, and that's something that we have integrated into our message.

>> commissioner tanner: i'm glad you are addressing that. did you want to add something? >> yeah. we're part of a team that has done some really good work on that, and i'm glad to share it with you offline. we have to think about all the other ways that these projects

can benefit. i think if we move onto studies that may lean more toward engineering, we have, i think, built an ethos around what we expect those studies to simultaneously tackle around those kinds of issues and our own role of changes within

planning code to support that. >> commissioner tanner: that's great. you know, one thing as these ideas keeping going, is there a rationale that near housing could support because it's an asset adding value, and, you know, those are things that are be your team's -- that are not your team's plan [indiscernible] and i wondered just about your conversations with sfmta cor, i don't know, maybe it's the police department or who about enforcement? so where i live has had a lot

of great new innovative painting and don't turn left on this red light, and people just do whatever. how are we making progress on vision zero? are we making progress? are we at a standstill, and are we doing all these things to make it easier to get around without a car, and sometimes those innovations or those treatment interventions are ignored by the users, which is particularly dangerous if they're driving a car, but also dangerous if you're riding a bike or going the wrong way or doing things that are dangerous for motorist that scare the

daylights out of me. >> my inclination would be to add it to a future agenda. we want to, professionally and for many reasons, promote active streets. we need to have active streets, and they have to be safe, but i will not profess to speak for m.t.a. or the police department

on this matter, but we can move it there. >> commissioner tanner: okay. appreciate your effort on this work, and appreciate the opportunity to learn more. >> clerk: okay, commissioners. if that concludes your questioning, you can move onto your next and final agenda item, case 2021-002698-cua, at 317 court land avenue. this is a condition -- cortland avenue. this is a conditional use authorization. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> i am. >> clerk: okay. >> michael christiansen for planning department staff.

the project does not include any requests for authorization of an on-site smoking or vaporizing lounge, and no expansion of the building or substantial exterior alterations are proposed. the department has received three letters in opposition of the project and 55 letters in support. support letters cited support of a cannabis retail outlet in the neighborhood, specific women focus business model, and confidence the business will be a positive addition to the

cortland neighborhood business distric and the department recommends approval as

proposed. this concludes my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions. the project sponsor also would like to make a presentation. >> clerk: thank you, michael. mr. alden, are you with us? >> i am. can you hear me? >> clerk: we can. you have five minutes. >> okay. so good afternoon, commissioners. my name is skip alden, and i'm one of the sponsors of the proposed project, and i live on -- >> clerk: mr. alden, i'm going to pause your time for a minute. is that better? >> yes. >> i'm going to have the

architect walk you through the project. >> -- this project has been supported by a group of strong talented women and a small army, including the project sponsors and our social equity partner, scott wolfe. next slide? next slide. we arrived at the concept for mary modern by recognizing that reports over the past few years show an increase of cannabis consumption among those that identify as women and that is an underserved market in cannabis. almost 50% of the population on cortland identified as women, making our location ideal. given our neighbors at the forefront, we've gone above and beyond to exceed the city's

requirements outlined in our good neighbor policy. we're implementing technology platforms to promote order ahead for pick up and scheduled arrivals. on-site security will enforce parking laws, and patrons who double park will be denied entry. professional armed security

guards as suggested by police will provide added secure in a much needed time as bernal heights neighborhood and its merchants have been experiencing high levels of vandalism and burglary. 24-7 high resolution cameras and strong exterior lighting may also help deter future property crime, and data shows that property crime decrease in areas near licensed dispensary location does. this is a proposed location in relation to k-12 school does. as you can see, we carefully selects -- selected this location as it's the distance

away from the school. next slide. this location would create 18 to 20 new jobs and over $100,000 in annual tax revenue. next slide. and here is a design rendering of the proposed location, created a bit nicely, into the neighborhood. next slide. this concludes our presentation. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. that concludes the project sponsor's presentation. we should open up public comment. members of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on this matter by pressing star, three to be added to the queue. okay. seeing no requests to speak from members of the public, public comment is closed, and this matter is now before you,

commissioners. >> president koppel: i'm in support of the project today. commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: none of the other commissioners have comments, i'll move to approve. >> commissioner tanner: second. >> vice president moore: second. >> clerk: okay. on that motion to approve with conditions -- [roll call] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 6-0. sorry to make you wait so long. that concludes your agenda today, commissioners. thank you for attending. >> president koppel: we're adjourned.

a city like no other, san francisco has been a beacon of hope, and an ally towards lgbtq equal rights. [♪♪]

>> known as the gay capital of america, san francisco has been at the forefront fighting gay civil rights for decades becoming a bedrock for the historical firsts. the first city with the first openly gay bar. the first pride parade. the first city to legalize gay marriage. the first place of the iconic gay pride flag. established to help cancel policy, programses, and initiatives to support trans and lgbtq communities in san francisco. >> we've created an opportunity to have a seat at the table.

where trans can be part of city government and create more civic engagement through our trans advisory committee which advises our office and the mayor's office. we've also worked to really address where there's gaps across services to see where we can address things like housing and homelessness, low income, access to small businesses and employment and education. so we really worked across the board as well as meeting overall policies. >> among the priorities, the office of transgender initiatives also works locally to track lgbtq across the country. >> especially our young trans kids and students. so we do a lot of work to make sure we're addressing and naming those anti-trans policies and doing what we can

to combat them. >> trans communities often have not been included at the policy levels at really any level whether that's local government, state government. we've always had to fend for ourselves and figure out how to care for our own communities. so an office like this can really show and become a model for the country on how to really help make sure that our entire community is served by the city and that we all get opportunities to participate because, in the end, our entire community is stronger. >> the pandemic underscored many of the inequities they experienced on a daily basis. nonetheless, this health crisis also highlighted the strength in the lgbtq and trans community. >> several of our team members were deployed as part of the work at the covid command center and they did incredit

able work there both in terms of navigation and shelter-in-place hotels to other team members who led equity and lgbtq inclusion work to make sure we had pop-up testing and information sites across the city as well as making sure that data collection was happening. we had statewide legislation that required that we collected information on sexual orientation and our team worked so closely with d.p.h. to make sure those questions were included at testing site but also throughout the whole network of care. part of the work i've had a privilege to be apart of was to work with o.t.i. and a community organization to work together to create a coalition that met monthly to make sure we worked together and coordinated as much as we could to lgbtq communities in the city. >> partnering with community organizations is key to the success of this office ensuring lgbtq and gender nonconforming

people have access to a wide range of services and places to go where they will be respected. o.t.i.'s trans advisory committee is committed to being that voice. >> the transgender advisory counsel is a group of amazing community leaders here in san francisco. i think we all come from all walks of life, very diverse, different backgrounds, different expertises, and i think it's just an amazing group of people that have a vision to make san francisco a true liberated city for transgender folks. >> being apart of the grou allows us to provide more information on the ground. we're allowed to get.

and prior to the pandemic, there's always been an issue around language barriers and education access and workforce development. now, of course, the city has been more invested in to make sure our community is thriving and making sure we are mobilizing. >> all of the supervisors along with mayor london breed know that there's still a lot to be done and like i said before, i'm just so happy to live in a city where they see trans folks and recognize us of human beings and know that we deserve to live with dignity and respect just like everybody else. >> being part of the trans initiative has been just a great privilege for me and i feel so lucky to have been able to serve for it for so far over three years. it's the only office of its kind and i think it's a big opportunity for us to show the country or the world about

things we can do when we really put a focus on transgender issues and transgender communities. and when you put transgender people in leadership positions. >> thank you, claire. and i just want to say to claire farly who is the leader of the office of transgender initiatives, she has really taken that role to a whole other level and is currently a grand marshal for this year's s.f. prize. so congratulations, claire. >> my dream is to really look at where we want san francisco to be in the future. how can we have a place where we have transliberation, quality, and inclusion, and equity across san francisco? and so when i look five years from now, ten years from now, i want us to make sure that we're continuing to lead the country in being the best that we can be. not only are we working to make sure we have jobs and equal opportunity and pathways to education, employment, and

advancement, but we're making sure we're taking care of our most impacted communities, our trans communities of color, trans women of color, and black trans women. and we're making sure we're addressing the barriers of the access to health care and mental health services and we're supporting our seniors who've done the work and really be able to age in place and have access to the services and resources they deserve. so there's so much more work to do, but we're really proud of the work that we've done so far. [♪♪] good morning everyone. i bet you all are wondering why we're here today. aren't you wondering?

this is probably the worst kept secret in san francisco, politics, but today i'm here to make a very important announcement. yesterday, the public utilities commission approved the contract for our city attorney dennis herrera to become the next director of this incredible department and i'm so grateful to our city attorney for the work that he has done to lead this city for the past 20 years, an office of dedicated public servants who fight every single day to focus on the things that mart the most to the people of san francisco. and with our city attorney moving on, we now have a vacancy potentially soon. and, as a result, we have to fill that vacancy. and i can't think of anyone

better to serve as the next city attorney for the city and county of san francisco than assembly member david choo. some of you ask, why david? many of you have reached out to me and expressed the interest in seeing someone like david become city attorney. now many of you may know him as the board of supervisors, but his extensive career, getting his law degree from harvard. working for the nineth circuit court of appeals. working as an attorney for the united states senate. working for lawyers committee for civil rights for the district attorney's office. he has an extensive career in law, one even before he stepped foot in the world of politics.

that's why when he served as the president of the board of supervisors, he was a consensus building. he was someone who was dedicated and worked hard to tackle many of the issues he now continues to tackle in sacramento. focuses on tenants' rights, focusing on employment rights, civil rights and discrimination, there is a number of things that david and i continue to work on time and time again because it centers around the best interest of the people of this city. we are here today at a location that david will talk about in just a little bit, but it's just one example of the work he did as an attorney to fight for those who are immigrants to san francisco to ensure that they have access to affordable housing just like anyone else and his work with the a.p.i.

community and a number of other challenges that existed during this pandemic demonstrates his commitment to fairness. it demonstrates his commitment to san francisco and it's why i know he'll be an incredible city attorney. and before i bring up david to talk a little bit and answer questions, i first want to just say a few things about our city attorney. you know, we have been so fortunate in this city to have dennis herrera as our city attorney for the past 20 years and, before he took office, he took office as a pledge to the people of san francisco that he would ensure integrity in public institutions and time and time again and every fight that this city attorney's office has taken on, he has done just that. starting early in his career with pg&e and the fight to shut

down the power plant which was an environmental harm to the people of the bayview hunter's point community. the work that he did to ensure that same-sex couples can marry legally just like anyone else was historic and went all the way to the supreme court where we have accomplished our goals, although, there are still fights that need to be done to ensure equality. his work when we first discovered sadly some of the challenges that existed with a number of city departments here in san francisco. he and our controller ben rosenfield investigated, dug deep, uncovered, and made recommendations of decisions that are currently now being implemented to restore public trust in those particular departments. his career is a long one, but one that has established him as

the city's attorney, but most importantly, the person that we all rely on. the person that we all respect and trust when it comes to implementing policies and dealing with cases that are the right thing to do and that will continue to protect our city. this is why i'm so grateful to him, so grateful and honored that in the wake of the challenges of the public utilities department, he is taking on this new role. and although i know he won't be very far away from the city attorney's office, i know that he's going to do some incredible work for the public utilities commission especially with everything we need to do to continue our fight for clean power and the challenges of distribution and running our own power system here in san francisco. our water, our sewage, our infrastructure, long-term planning and also just making

sure that the people who work in that department know that they have someone to count on to lead that department and make good decisions on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. with that, i want to bring up city attorney dennis herrera before i introduce david chu. >> thank you, madam mayor. i see one of my last roles still as city attorney. when you get the pleasure of being an official, you can correct the mayor. she said potentially an opening. i submitted my letter of resignation, you accepted it. come 11:59 p.m. on october the 31st, halloween, i will no longer be city attorney. and it's been an honor and privilege of my life to serve the people of san francisco as their city attorney for nearly 20 years.

i've accomplished all that i could ever hope for and more as city attorney and while now is the time for new professional challenge for me, i'm thrilled to be able to lead this office in the hands of someone who is committed to the mission, the values and integrity that have made the san francisco city attorney's office so remarkable for so long the nation's preamanent public law office. i knew david chu way back when. he is committed to transparency and clean government and he is independent which is the most important thing you can do as san francisco city attorney. i just want to give you a few examples of his dedication to the people of san francisco. one focuses on everyday issues

and david and i worked together to support the entertainment industry through legislation that made it safer for patrons to frequent night life venues in san francisco. that was david chu's leadership. another example shows his commitment to clean that tightened rules and regulations and expanded accountability and access. that was david chiu's leadership. and finally and most recently, david worked with us fighting for california consumers. some of you, probably most of you remember that cities throughout the state won public

nuisance law against the lead paint industry. that made sure we saw remediation of thousands of use of lead paint throughout california. the lead paint industry didn't like the imposed remedy and they went up to the legislature and tried to sneak through a bill that would have limited traditionally imposed liability. david chiu took the leadership, phoned me, worked clearly with our office to make sure california consumers were protected and that those traditional remedies stayed in place and that millions of californians would benefit. more than anything else, that's what you need to be a good city attorney and he won't be doing it alone. i can tell you the professional integrity of the attorneys, the investigators and the industry leading staff and the attorney's office is unquestionable and they will continue to do their job for the people of san francisco and

they will work tirelessly to ensure a smooth and seamless transition and make him the best city attorney he could be. it is my honor and privilege turning over this office to somebody who will be a tremendous steward of our traditions. thanks very much. [ applause ] >> thank you again to our city attorney dennis herrera for your service and thank you for your commitment to san francisco. the city attorney's office here in this city is arguably the number one city attorney's office anywhere in the country and it is because of the leadership of our current city attorney and i know there are big shoes to fill and so in making a decision like this,

it's not a decision that you take lightly. it's important to do what is in the best interest of the city and ultimately assembly member chiu will be doing this job for the next couple of months until you, the people of the city of san francisco make your decision. he is the peoples' attorney. he represents the people of the city and county of san francisco and, ultimately, you are the ones who decide and i think that over the years many of you and hands down, he is one of the most gracious, hardworking, consensus building, structured, relentless, pursuit of justice person i know. i've worked with him for many, many years on so many issues starting with the board of

supervisors and before i bring david chiu up to say a few words, i remember when i was elected to the board of supervisors and one of the first supervisors who reached out to me was david chiu. and we met and he had a binder like this thick. and he said this wasn't it, there were a number of other things that i needed to read before i do my job. he wanted me to be prepared for what the job entailed. not when i got to the job, but before i set foot in that chamber, he wanted to make sure that i was ready to do the business of the people and we went on to work on so many pieces of legislation together and even when he left to go to sacramento, he would still reach out to partner on important issues impacting the city. he is one of the hardest working legislators i know and what's so interesting as an attorney, it's always from a

lens, a legal lens of trying to get to the point to really make sure that the policy is effective. and i think based on what our city attorney dennis herrera has already said about his work, his consistency, his involvement in important issues and protecting the public's best interest regardless of who the fight is against, he will continue with that same drive, that same commitment, that same spirit of love for the people of san francisco. ladies and gentlemen, i introduce you the next city attorney for the city and county of san francisco david chiu. congratulations. [ applause ] >> good morning. i am so humbled and grateful for this appointment. and let me start first by

thanking mayor breed not just for this opportunity to serve, but for her tremendous leadership during these incredibly difficult times and i'm looking forward to working with her and alongside her with every single member of the board of supervisors, with 100 city departments and commissions to move our city forward. i, of course, want to solute my friend, our current city attorney dennis herrera. for the past 20 years, he has established the gold standard for public law offices in this country. i think it would take us an hour to summarize his accomplishments, but let me just say in short, our city owes dennis herrera an incredible debt of gratitude. and i am looking forward to working closely with him during this transition and with him in

his new role. i also want to take a moment of personal privilege and thank my dear wife, candace. in addition to her public interest job, she has for the past seven years held down the home fort while i have been in sacramento looking over our very rambunxious five-year-old son. growing up in boston, none of us ever expected that i become an attorney because my family, none of us had ever met an attorney, had ever known an attorney, but something happened my college freshman year. i got a call from a friend

about a hate crime involving eight asian students at a nearby school who were on their way to a formal dance, who were attacked by football players who hurled racial epifats. and the most incredible thing about that experience is those football players were never disciplined. that moment among others changed my life. i became a student activist. i studied the civil rights movement. i changed my major from bio chemistry to government. i wanted to fight for justice. the fight for justice is why i became a public interest attorney. why i clerked for the nineth circuit. why i served as a criminal prosecutor. why i served to the democratic council. why i then became a civil rights attorney. the fight for justice is why i

moved to san francisco because in our city, we stand up for those who are more vulnerable than we are. we right wrongs. i first came to san francisco to work for the committee for civil rights as we were challenging proposition 187. an anti-immigrant initiative that would have kicked immigrant kids out of schools and hospitals. a couple years later, i represented a number of affordable housing organizations including mission housing and i want to thank sam moss and your leadership because, at that time, there were rules in place by governor pete wilson to kick immigrant tenants out of their homes. immigrants like my parents, homes like the ones behind us. well, for those two lawsuits, we prevailed. justice prevailed. for the last 13 years, i have been so honored to serve as a

local then as a state lawmaker for san francisco. and during that entire time, the fight for justice has been front and center. i've been fighting for our collective civil rights, offering laws not just to expanded rights of housing and the rights of our immigrants, but the rights of our lgbtq community, the rights of women, the right to choose. and as your next city attorney, i look forward to furthering that right for our collective civil rights because in the wake of "me too," "black lives matter," and anti-asian hate, we have a right. i've taken on some of the most entrenched corporate companies in america. big pharma, gun manufacturers and lead companies.

wall street and big predatory profiters for schools. i'm going to fight to make sure that we are protecting workers, we are standing up for consumers and we are going to hold corporations accountable if they cross the line. as a policy maker working with our good mayor, our supervisors, our city attorney, i've worked hard to address the pressing issues of the day. whether it be getting folks to work or making sure tenants are housed after this pandemic. as your city attorney, i'm going to work with these policy members to look for ways and opportunities to use the law, to address the pressing problems of the day. homelessness, public safety on our streets. the existential. let me just close by

observation about what is happening in our country at this moment. we are living in dark days. there are rights that we have taken for granted that are literally in danger. the right to health care. the right to choose. the right to vote. but the san francisco city attorney's office has often stood up during dark days when no one thought marriage equality was possible. when donald trump targeted our sanctuary city. when mayor breed needed legal advice in how to defend san francisco from a new virus called "covid-19." and the incredible professionals at the san francisco city attorney's office have wielded legal swords and legal shields for our city and state time after time after time and i'm looking forward to standing alongside each of them, to standing alongside the office. and standing up for san francisco and fighting for

justice. thank you. [ applause ] >> and, to talk a little bit about assembly member chiu's work, i wanted to bring up sam moss who is the director of mission housing development corporation, mission housing. sam. >> thank you, mayor breed. to say it's an honor to be up here is really putting it lightly. i never thought ten years ago when i first started at mission housing we'd be here today, but it is a true honor to be up here and help david move on to the next part of his career, but most importantly to usher in such a great person to the city of san francisco. there are a few people in the affordable housing industry's experience that have fought as hard for low-income tenants

than david chiu and i don't just mean, you know, fighting hard with a tweet here and there. david really, he writes the legislation, he calls you up. he wants to know what you think. and it is rare that a politician truly believes in what they're doing that doesn't just want to write legislation for legislation's sake. david really hits the ground running and he understands. mission housing would not be where it is today without the hard work and support of david chiu both as a city supervisor, the president of the board of supervisors, as well as a city person up in sacramento and i think it's fitting we have this event today. to have this press conference here i think it brings it all back home. so i want to thank everyone for

coming and say again what an honor it is to be here. congrats. [ applause ] >> all right. there it is. the worst kept secret in san francisco is finally out. with that, are there any questions? >> city attorney herrera, where does that city wide corruption investigation stand and how do you pass it on? >> let me just say, first of all, you are correct that we've been working diligently over the course of the last year and a half both the controller's office and the law enforcement agencies to make sure that our departments live up to the highest ethical standards. and we have over the course of that time rolled out numerous recommendations, actions, which demonstrate how seriously our office and the controller's office take our investigation. while i will not comment on the

specifics of any investigation, as i've said all along, our investigations continue and irrespective of whether i'm in that office or not, they will continue because these type of investigations are made up not necessarily of the folks at the top. we have some of the most dedicated legal professionals anywhere, veterans u.s. attorneys offices and other agencies that are committed to this work and will guide, advise assembly member chiu as the investigations continue and they will continue and they'll go where they are and the next city attorney will make his decisions and his recommendations in the actions he chooses to bring and he'll continue to advise mayor breed about the best way to ensure we're living up to the truest and highest ethical ideals. that will not slow down and it

will continue. >> thank you. and i'll just add that some of the investigation that the city attorney and controller's office has done for various city agencies have led to a number of recommendations which i immediately through an executive directive implemented certain directives like the department of building inspection and the department of public works, so i will continue to do what is necessary to get our city on track and to restore public trust after a very challenging time for our city and this is why in making decisions about who is running these various agencies that were, of course, of concern from the public. that's why it's so important to have people like our city attorney at the helm of the public utilities commission as well as other agencies and making those decisions, you can

be assured that these public servants like david chiu and like dennis herrera have their own established reputations and will be extraordinary leaders in helping make these decisions in these various conditions. all right. no more questions. easy crowd, huh. all right. thank you everyone. [ applause ] . >> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what

think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san

francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the

grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care

from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd getetetetetetetetetet.

secretary, would you please call the roll. >> (roll call). >> our next item i will yield to commissioner dorado to read the land acknowledgement. >> the san francisco health commission acknowledges that we are on the