tv Planning Commission SFGTV April 29, 2021 4:00am-8:01am PDT
planning can do. the aspirational elements are fine. many of the things that are talked about, whether it's the funding, building and operation of rental or housing units is not something that planning has any control over. but the things we do have control over, and i would probably look at two areas, one is if 50 something percent of the land mass of san francisco has very low density, it makes sense to look at what are our options, and some of the things that are being done are proposed in this housing element makes sense. i think they need to be fleshed out more so that people have a clear understanding that we're not talking about dropping high-rises in the middle of
single family homes. the second that i think makes a lot of sense has been brought up in the course of the study, an that is what happens in the -- in terms of density in the transit-rich corridors. i think we should be looking at density incentives there. but it's not just for housing. it would be perhaps a tier process for middle income housing, and perhaps the high -- so that we can then perhaps incentivize that in terms of getting people to be able to build that kind of housing. at this point i think that the staff has done a fairly good job
of stakeholder engagement in terms of outreach. i'll just leave this as a draft. it will continue to be developed, and i think the implementation side is gonna require a lot more fleshing out so that we can provide something that is concrete in addition to what is aspirational. >> commissioner moore? >> time -- and i want to keep my comments very, very short. thank you to everybody, staff, the public and my fellow commissioners for very thoughtful comments and thought-provoking ideas. i wanted to pick up on commissioner tanner's thoughts
about rental registration. this has been mentioned many, many times before. this is helping us as one tool of helping us. i would like to ask how are we factoring in vacancies? starting in 2010, the number of unoccupied housing units in san francisco have always been of large concern have been standing
vacant for years. have you factored these in? have you been able to track them in any form if those numbers are reflected in those studies? >> thank you for that question. we have -- we have definitely studied the trends and vacancy, and in terms of factoring in the number of vacant units into i'm assuming i think you mean the original targets. i don't know if that's something that will be possible per state law. however, we do have policies and actions that talk about vacancy and discouraging it. but as far as factoring them in to the kind of projection numbers, i don't believe that
will be possible per state law requirement. >> thank you for answering that question. i would like to have that discussion at some other point with the commissioner as well as planning of artificial building volumes that are available but cannot be utilized to help us with bringing down the numbers of units needed. a discussion perhaps for a different type of environment. thank you. >> i too want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the staff for the enormous amount of work that's gone into the preparation, both of these documents and to the community for taking the time to participate in all parts of this process. i really also want to thank my fellow commissioners for the thoughtfulness of their comments and really just want to limit my
comments to one area that i don't think may have been sufficiently touched on so far, and that is i guess i would like confirmation from staff that you are as part of this process talking to the providers of the kinds of housing that we would like to see built that is not currently being built and to understand the real-world obstacles and hurdles that are getting in the way of the production of that type of housing. let me just call out two examples. if we would like to see more -- we have an aging population in the city. we would like to see more facilities of all kinds for older adults. one of the kinds of facilities we'd like to see are the small residential care facilities in the neighborhood. so if they are going out of business, we're not seeing the expansion of them. what is actually getting in the way? is it a land use problem that we can fix through zoning or is it
a financial problem that requires, you know, subsidies that no matter what we do from a land use perspective are not really gonna help if in fact the solution to that problem is financial subsidies. so that's one example. a second is, you know, the missing middle housing. my understanding, i completely agree and endorse the concept of having much denser housing along the commercial corridors, and i'll take geary as an example. geary as it heads west. the current stoning there would allow -- zoning there would allow for, even if we did nothing would allow for the production of much higher denser development than we are currently seeing exist, and yet we're not seeing very many proposals. why? what is it that's getting in the way of current developers? is it that they need greater heights? they need greater density, that the process is too fraught, it
takes too long to get through? it feels so me important to, you know, talk with the actual providers of that kind of housing to make sure that we understand the hurdles and that among the panoply of suggestions and goals and policies we are including that we are targeting or prioritizing those that really would make a difference. and you may already be doing that, and if so that's fantastic, but if not, i would -- and if you are, i think you should let us know that. and if not, then i would encourage you to undertake that part of the outreach in the next step of this process. thank you. >> thank you. i'll just quickly respond. we have talked a little bit with senior advocates, but that's in an area that, if you like, are -- outreach didn't go far
enough, and we are really hoping to pursue that further. and as far as talking with, you know, providers of housing, kind of smaller multi-family, that's also an area that we are working on. we have had a few conversations as part of a housing groups, and we want to expand that. thanks for highlighting that. >> thank you. >> commissioners, that concludes your deliberation on this matter. we should probably move on to the rest of your agenda. hearing no additional requests to speak from commissioners, we can move on to item eight for case no. 2021-0031-0-prj, transitioning shared spaces to a permanent city program. this is also an informational presentation. staff, are you prepared to make your presentation? >> just a quick intro item before robin jumps in. i just wanted to talk about --
>> can you hear me now? >> i can, yes. sorry, wanted to frame this item and the next one, which is the mayor small business recovery act, because they are related in part of mayor breed's kind of broader recovery efforts, assisting small businesses, particularly those in our neighborhood, the commercial corridors. as you know and have heard from us previously, this effort started with the mayor and then the economic recovery task force which was established in october of last year mayor breed announced the city would transition shared spaces from a
temporary program to a permanent one, and in march the mayor, lang with supervisor mandelman, supervisor safai and -- ordinance before you. am i still breaking up? >> [indiscernible]. >> okay, sorry. the codified version, when you're going to hear -- which you're going to hear about from robin carries forward much of the temporary versions while reintroducing some processes for public input as well as more rigorous design requirements. -- permanent programs build on our parklet program which was conceived here over 12 years ago and shared spaces will be coordinated by planning. just wanted to thank robin who has done a tremendous amount of work, our entire team has done a
tremendous amount of work both bringing up and implementing the temporary program, as well as developing the permanent program so robin and others, just wanted to give them a shout out and a huge thank you. so with that i'll turn it over to robin. >> thank you. i'm getting a little bit of feedback. can everyone hear me okay? hopefully we're okay. thank you, director, president koppel, vice-president moore, commissioners. pleasure to be back before the commission to update you on the shared spaces. in addition to the planning staff which the director acknowledged, i wanted to recognize some of our interagency team who is also here with us this evening should any questions come up for matters specific to their
the legislation and the way that the legislation implements on those goals. and then we'll also talk a little bit about how we're going to affect this complex transition from this temporary program and bringing all of the constituents into one. and a quick recap, shared spaces take place in the out of doors. this program was conceived to allow primarily, you know, commercial activities that wouldn't have otherwise been possible inside due to covid-19, community transmission concerns and have taken it out of doors. and as director hillis mentioned earlier this is really building on the innovation and experimentation that we have been doing here in san francisco. we didn't need to reinvent the wheel and we just had to adapt programs and public space activation and public realm activation that we were already well versed in. and, you know, probably most
notably on the sidewalks and on the curbside lanes in that topology that is native to san francisco. and we have helped the communities close on a recurring basis streets, for recurring pop-up environments as unenclosed areas like parking lots and predevelopment sites and the like. the uses have also varied and we're all pretty familiar with the way in which it's been adapted for outdoor dining and also for outdoor retail. so personal services such as haircuts and personal fitness have moved activities out of doors during the pandemic. and very pandemic specific functions include reserving cure
pick-up. very very short-term layovers to exchange or pick up essential goods like medications and groceries and so forth. and then, of course, this is so that folks are safely distanced from one another as they're waiting to essential goods and service providers, retailers in our corridors. notably, and we'll talk about this a little bit more deeply later, when appropriate, given the public health directives, entertainment, arts and culture activities have also been a really critical layer. accessory to the shared spaces commercializes and that have been a plus. recovering and healing as a community and a city. so, you know, the program was conceived and operated really in response to the trends that we were seeing -- the economic
trends that we were seeing during the covid-19 pandemic. this data is from a past report from the end of last year, from the san francisco programs at the time, the third in the country in terms of small business closures and then fourth in terms of documented permanent closures of those small businesses. we know that this trend is something that will pay out, even past the public health pandemic itself, the public health emergency. our kind of dealing with the fallout and stabilizing our locally owned businesses in our neighborhoods and the commercial corridors will be an ongoing endeavor in future years. the will program was first launched in july as director hillis had mentioned it's been a very eventful -- july 2020 -- it's been a very eventful 10 plus months. this slide is mostly just to
illustrate that, you know, we've had to deliver this program as a city in a varied environment. the city, the county, the state, has moved back and forth through different phases of risk level from tier yellow to red, and through the deaths of this past winter, 2020-2021, we, of course, fell under the state's regional shelter-in-place order that was even more intensive than the purple because of our i.c.u. capacity falling below the threshold. so there's been a lot of inconsistency and inequality of the part of the population that is currently on the street which we will talk about a little bit later. all of that variability in the environment and the uncertainty, we know from our permit volume that the interest in the small business sector is very high in
the program and we saw, you know, rapid growth and then we maintained steady interest as demonstrated even through the depths of that most intensive shelter in place in the winter. since the program launched we received over 3,000 applications for shared spaces and you can see that about 69% of the applications that currently have an operational permit. and the types of places where folks are activating are sponsored shared spaces. and it's quite varied and you can see from the slide that there's a good span between the shared spaces on the sidewalk and the curbside lane and in many cases sort of the shared spaces (indiscernible) and the
curbside pickup, reserved parking is another fairly significant (indiscernible). and we mentioned earlier -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you but your audio is beginning to cut in and out if you kill your video, it might assist. >> thanks for that warning, jonas, i appreciate it. midway through the shared spaces program, the entertainment commission worked on providing an opportunity, a way for performing artists to also to be part of the solution out in public space. and so since the program launched, we've had 222 of those shared spaces sites apply for some kind of entertainment permit, about 68 of those in effect. we're working with the city economist office to, of course, to get into more detailed analysis about what the impacts actually have been. not only for individual
merchants and small businesses, but, you know, collectively in terms of the employment base that was just salvaged (indiscernible) and, of course (indiscernible) we don't quite have it yet. we will have quarter two data from fiscal year 2021-2022, this would be september-december, 2020, that we'll be able to analyze and update the research that we've done so far in terms of understanding what the (indiscernible) clearly the impact has been. there's ongoing impact surveys, equity impact surveys, who we are keeping track of who is participating in shared spaces. you know, what does this group of merchants and small business owners look like? we know that about half, actually, a little bit more than
half that of shared spaces are women-owned enterprises. we also know that another third of them identify as immigrant homes and over a third identify in some way or another as minority owned. we surveyed our -- our impact survey also tells us that if not for the economic recovery task force and mayor breed creating this program, folks wouldn't have been able to operate at all under the state and the city's public health directives. so it has been critical to allowing for continued operation at some scale, obviously, not at 100% capacity, but to help people to hang on to the most dire shelter-in-place, as well as to allow folks, you know, to avert having to close permanently. many of these businesses are legacy businesses, you know, merchants who have been serving their neighborhoods and their communities in some cases
decades. also driving our i think push to make this a permanent lasting opportunity for shared spaces operators, and for reasons that i mentioned earlier which is that we know that economic recovery will be slow going, but also that lo and behold after 10 months san francisco has discovered it does have an appetite for an outdoor dining culture. so it might not have been the first assumption that we had about san francisco, cool and gray and sometimes gusty climate, nonetheless, we see that folks like to be outside and dine. that concludes the kind of background on the shared spaces program. i'm going to move into the policy goals that the ordinance that was introduced by mayor breed and supervisors mandelman, safai, stefani, and haney are
organized around these nine policy goals. again colleagues from m.t.a. and they are here in case there's detailed questions about all of these. so starting with simplifying the city. so as i mentioned earlier, we already do a lot of great public space work and we know how to do it safely and we know how to do it effectively. and we just want to consolidate all of those good ideas and merge them with shared spaces so merchants have an easily accessible set of strategies and tools to bring the commercial activities outdoors for community groups to activate their streets and sidewalks. that is streamlined in terms of understanding there. and to know that the covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated and deepened the inequities.
so we're very intentional through the temporary phase of the program as well as through the proposed codified version of the program to leverage it in a fashion that helps to explicitly to address inequities rather than replicate and to deepen those. so we shall continue, and making sure that some of our covid distressed geographies get extra technical assistance and support in the form of grants and in the form of e.s.l. outreach and the like. we know that economic recovery, i keep saying this, is going to persist. it's going to go beyond the formal end of emergency -- public health emergency. in this way the legislation does
stagger a few key milestones in order to have merchants to enter a new codified program in a way that is not unduly stressful. so the legislation has two key concepts which are kind of illustrated in this slide that i'll talk about. one has to do with design and compliance. this is around compliance and safety and so forth. and the other has to do with fee assessments. and looking at the first one, what we're in essence doing with the legislation that is providing for is giving everyone a long run way -- six months or more between now and december 31, 2021, to fix any compliance issues that we might have documented at their site. so this ranges from things like, you know, having an a.d.a.
accessible threshold condition between their parking deck and the sidewalk. the fire department has also worked with us over the last 10 months to come up with even more rigorous design guidelines to ensure that emergency personnel are able to pass through these structures and access the facade, the ingress and the, egress parts of buildings. to be be erected to serve this emergency need and we know that we'll have to work with facing these issues and to become compliant with the codified requirements. so our team, monica, gregory, deana and rest of our team will be working with shared spaces to understand what those new requirements are and to help to bring them into compliance. we will also announce a compliance grant program to help offset some of the costs that are associated with that -- that
work. the second big concept is that fees are going to be deferred. so far during the emergency early in the program, these permits are free, that was, you know, a key tenet of the emergency response program. and to be free through the end of this fiscal year. we will assess fees or the legislation that we propose to assess fees, permit fees for parklets starting in the new fiscal year, july 2021, but the collection of those will be deferred to the very end of the year giving folks, again, enough time to get back on their feet in order to (indiscernible) another key provision of the shared spaces temporary program, of course, was enlivening these spaces when appropriate given the covid health restrictions, given the good neighbor policies
and rules. (indiscernible) for entertainment. so we will be carrying this forward. there are tools that the entertainment commission already has that will allow actually a lot of this to carry forward without the explicit work on our part to amend any code. the small business recovery act, which you will hear just after this agenda item, is affecting some small tweaks in code to also further to enable this where entertainment is not already principally permitted in open lots. another crucial element of bringing this program into the future and foremost in many folks' mind is how we maintain balance in our streets and rights of ways and on our curbs with all of the competing demands that is necessary for our streets to perform.
so we will be implementing the city's management strategy adopted by the board in february 2020 in order to assess appropriateness of location for shared spaces moving forward. during the pandemic, we did allow a lot of conditions to kind of emerge that we customarily or otherwise would not have. so, for example, a yellow curbside loading zone or in a transit boarding area for a bus line that had been temporary suspended by muni in their core service plan. as our commercial corridors begin to open back up, more businesses open and economic activity, you know, resumes, which is what we all want, we know that transportation and circulation demands in our corridors will increase in a commensurate faction. so that means big picture that
there will be a rebalancing of the curbuse allocation in our corridors to allow for this new kind of more intense use of the parking lane for shared spaces. but not to the detriment or the sacrifice of sufficient loading, short-term unmetered parking, you know, bus zones and so forth. also something that is attended to, you know, like the discourse around the parklet topography is the idea that these facilities could and should be public assets. they should be giving back to their local neighborhoods and maintaining some kind of invitation back to their neighborhoods that improves the quality of the streetscape and affords amenity. so some very key provisions are being introduced in the shared
spaces legislation that somewhat diverges from our prior regulatory kind of framework for parklets. in that we are allowing commercialization of these -- of the locations. the pre-covid parklet was one that was a facility that was accessible to anyone, and you didn't have to be a patron of the sponsoring business in order to take a seat there, but, you know, we have adapted that through the pandemic, you know, to allow for more intensive commercial use. so the big picture is that whether or not you're a parklet, that is sort of open to the public at all times and you are, you know, you're operating a parklet that is not intended for groups and maybe you are -- and maybe you're a pizza and wine space and you invested in a parklet, but either way there's
a part of this facility, on the parklet itself or on the building or nearby that is a publicly accessible facility so that you're still giving back to the neighborhood and you can imagine, you know, a grandparent picking their grandchild up from school and walking home about 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon and passing by a whole bunch of these parklets. and you should be able to grab an ice cream or not grab an ice cream and sit on your journey home. so we're taking the best parts of our pre-covid-19 program and our covid shared spaces program and organizing them under a single (indiscernible) so what we're in effect doing is creating a kind of set of different options or tiers that you might want to operate a park (indiscernible). so tier one it resembles what we
had before covid. and tier 3, what we dub as the commercial parklet is what most shared spaces look like today and we'll go into expectations for all of these in a moment. but to just put some visuals in terms of the variety of things that we may be seeing on our streets that may relate to one another. critically, there's this tier, that commercial parklet. and this is an important option for folks for many reasons. as you can see it's a lighter investment. in last 10 months of shared spaces, that some parkletiers might offer something like this before they upgrade to something that is more from a kind of a design point of view as robust. so we want to have the ability to do something lightweight and much less expensive. this is also a really important
opportunity to provide an option, rather, to provide -- because it means that during the hours and the days of the week that you're not operating, popping up in a curbside lane, that curbside can be turned over to other critical needs and functions. again, short-term parking, you know, commercial or passenger loading, all of the other needs that we know that our commercial corridors have in terms of circulation. so just a few more pictures what that tier two parklet is like around the city. we know that these can be safe, attractive and comfortable locations to have part-time pop-up. and a bit more nitty-gritty and reiterating the last few visual slides. these are how well these tiers are rated next to one another and the expectations that we
have. critically, again, each parklet irrespective of what tier you're in needs to provide a seating facility, even during the hours of commercial operation and in daylight hours. that's also another critical nuance to the legislation as proposed. formerly with the pre-covid parklet, somewhere around 65 or 70 around the city -- there was no provision or actually it was prohibited to close off your parklet. we're now creating an option for those who want to to take measures overnight and to secure their parklet from, you know, for safety. so we know that not everyone will need or feel compelled to do this, but for those parkletiers in neighborhoods
where the street life dynamics are such that they feel compelled to take measures to secure the parklet just overnight, that will now be allowed. during daylight hours, the provision is for these sites to be accessible. and the proposed fee structure follows the tiers and it's obviously costs more to acquire a fee relative to the intensity of the commercial use. so along the lines of making this really easy for folks to access in terms of a program commensurate with and in line with a lot of the drivers of (indiscernible) and we are simply looking at ways that fees
are collected and we're consolidating those all with the treasure and tax collectors office who will be handling the fees where many small businesses already pay license fees for other types of permits. and we're working with the department of digital services to create a single one-stop-shop permit intake portal. so whether or not you are seeking to activate the sidewalk on a recurring basis, or, you know, maybe close a side street off your commercial corridor, with your neighbors, once a month -- you will submit all of your materials through one portal. this is a complex interagency program, but the applicant won't have to run around town trying to get multiple approvals and permits from multiple different agencies. (please stand by)
backbone behind the scenes of how the city will conduct review and approval for specific components of the (inaudible). missing from this slide is a row from curbside (inaudible). will be handled by the m.t.a. happily, we've also seen a lot of coordination and collaboration between makes so we've have merchants jointly operating or co-operating a shared space. and this is activities that we would like to see continue. we've also learned a lot from scaling up the park let program
from 60 to over 1,500 over the last 10 months and that encouraging this between neighbors is critical to a site but a commercial corridor's. for this reason we are codifying requirements for consent from neighbors and sparking spaces to lineup in front of your storefront and there's a lot of sharing of that front age area between neighboring businesses so we're requiring that if you, as a merchant, want to pop in front of your neighbor's front age, the groundfloor ten apartment or occupant of that space provide written consent. in absence of that groundfloor tenant that the property owner of the neighboring property provide written consent.
>> how much more time do you need for your presentation? >> this is the last slide. >> thank you. you are limited to 20 minutes and you are way over. >> thank you. last slide, just pointing out that we are also consolidating the ways and streamlining the ways that enforcement will be (inaudible). i'll stop sharing my screen and we can move to public comment. >> members of the public, this is your opportunity to speak to this matter by pressing star and 3. through the chair, you will have two minutes. when you hear it's been unmuted that's your indication to begin speaking.
>> caller: i'm sorry. this is christopher from (inaudible) and i'm not sure if this has to do with the store next to me for in -- but i was giving my support for it. >> hello. >> if you want to make a comment on this, sir. we'll take the next caller. >> caller: hi, my name is renee occurren and i live in the inner sunset. i have a lot of concerns about this plan. and i think that the spearer
tried to address them but i didn't fell they were addressed. for one it was great to have these park let's during the pandemic and to continue as long as we open up and you know, this hasn't been tried under the traffic conditions that we'll have when we open up. and i'm also really concerned about how these spaces will be shared and through a cold climate and a lot of these restaurants are right near paying for heating lamps and other amenities and how willing are they to just pop down and sit in this space without giving them business. also, those on the sidewalk. it's not always pleasant to walk through these spaces like
walking through a restaurant. so, you know, these spaces aren't shared and they're not public space anymore once we allow this to be permanent. thank you. >> caller: i'm a paratransit client, i'm on the paratransit council. i previously won an award from paratransit council for my advocacy. i'm going to suggest youth stamp or the direct formulate a plan for stamp to present to the paratransit council and the current process to stop provide specific since the statistics
i've mentioned for months and months and months on your own stamp presenter how there are times where people with disabilities can't get to a destination because of this program. look at the 200 block of church. >> we made a presentation about three types of park let's. he didn't make that same presentation last friday to the
disability couple. he is giving the public biased, incomplete information. go back and look at this eastside of church street in the 200 block. there's a non compliant unsafe parklet. i've complained about that to months for various people. i mention touchdown to your current staff and the disability couple. and to the t.p.w. staff who are lurking on the disability council. no one has done a damn thing. they've said nothing and they've not responded and they've not looked at the unsafe tee of the eastside park let in the middle of the 200 block of church street where the fence posts are butting the curb. meaning when it rains the water pushes up against the post and then goes onto the sidewalk bringing with it sand, grit,
dirt, leaf litter which makes the sidewalks slippery. >> thank you, sir. >> caller: good evening. my name lucille. i've met with about 15 small businesses along the mission corridor in this group we have discussed the disparity for the different needs that businesses have experienced during covid and i have heard from our migrant businesses owned by people of color and how they have been support during the time and to keep the businesses a float and i think that is partners has been a wait and been able to remain open and create some sort of revenue during these tough times and we can see how they can be
successful and however, i do think that this program lasts policies and there are two different realities for businesses and you have a capital or you don't. it's as classic tale of san francisco the battle of the have and have nots it's unfortunate that has magnified during with covid and it's charter tieing in san francisco and if this program is here to say we need to say our most vulnerable business owners have the same opportunities of anyone and make them a priority. during the last six months, they have helped over 30 small businesses along the for dore applying for the program to see financial help and with those 30 businesses, only one of them got approved for support. i think that we still have a long way to keep these programs and shared spaces and our communities and to cater just to more avenue flew enter businesses so i can that you please pause so we can gather more communities input and make this program more equitable,
thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, corey smith and just speaking as an individual and a resident, the last couple of speakers really did highlight some of the things we need to pay attention to as this program gets rolled out and does become more permanent and i want to reiterate and i believe that all of you believe this that we're not going to get it perfect from the start so being open to iterations and improvements throughout, and order to create a more inclusive equitable program makes a lot of sense. the last thing i want to emphasis for a variety of reasons, removing private car space in exchange or open space
and places for people to gather is good city planning and makes our city more enjoyable and i, like many san franciscans, really look forward to these becoming permanent pieces of our commercial corridors. thank you. >> hello. can everyone hear me? hello? >> we can hear you, fine. >> caller: thank you. my name is jeff and i live in the mission district and i've been here 20 years and i've been in the city for longer and yeah, i really appreciate that the presenter from the city talked about not exacerbating existing equities.
they're a big restaurant and it's a crazy standard and it's just like amazing if you have enough resources you can take more resource and these were public. the speaker just now talked about removing private car space in favor of public space is a good thing and well sure, it's not what i see happening. and probably one of the most egregious that i know about in the mission on the mission playground and is the restaurant called the beehive that is just
in the public parks and kicking people right out of a public and it used to be a public park and it's not ok. the land grab and privatization of public space and it's not acceptable. if the program is going to continue they need to be fully public. the speaker from the city talked about an example of a grand mother walking the grandchild down the street and he caught himself, he said or not buy a ice cream cone but that's the crux of it. we have every square foot of space in the city to be only that you have to spend money and i hope the city -- >> clerk: thank you, sir, that's your time. >> caller: corey smith again, not supposed object the line. didn't press it.
>> caller: good evening, ozzie with san francisco land use coalition. it's one thing to allow outdoor seating on the street to remedy the shut down during the covid when there are few people around and little traffic in motion but to make these permanent in normal times is hazardous to pedestrians, hazardous to bicyclists and to disabled and they make it harder for businesses in the vicinity whose signage will be blocked by these structure and they have to double park to deliver their goods. how are we going to deal with the energy requirements and mark twain said summers are the coldest winters. these outdoor spaces need heating and outdoor heating and that usual add to our carbon footprint and the city speaks from both sides of its mouth. you make gas in new construction
illegal. then, you come up with a new scheme that legalizes way more gas usage than a stove in a house. that is why we, the correlation for san francisco, land use coalition, is completely against this. and by the way, just a friendly note to the millionaires for million dollar homes, including professor henry higgons who commented earlier when tons of people of color show up at a hearing to public comment about the housing issues, it's bad form and bad p.r. to dis rent control and ask for more housing on the same land where these folks live and raise their families. just saying. thank you. >> hi, my name is cj and i'm a daughter of a immigrant mission in the business and i would like to ask the planning department
that you need to conduct proper engagement with the communities that you are impacting as a business owner, we do not have to learn shared spaces lem h legislative to provide necessary feedback. we need to provide input so that we can let the planning department realize that this legislative doesn't provide fit everyone, not everyone is able to fit this kind of model that you are planning for us. so i would like to -- the shared space legislation be paused until enough collaboration with the communities is going to impact has been given enough information. thank you. >> my name is richard scath.
photos there that show a line of trajection from vehicles. you have taken over the parkings lane and you have not provided k-rail, for example, to protect. >> that is your time. >> caller: my name is michael nolte i'm the coordinator of protection san francisco streets and sidewalks for all. we request the full review of the returning as much parking and sidewalks after covid-19 pandemic. we request that a process be established by neighbors and stakeholders to remove hazardous and spaces that interfere with the disabled. it was established with very
little oversight and the program relied on citizens complaints to monitor this process and also causing terrible parking near and in front of those small businesses that are currently using the shared space program. other issues are noise complaints after 10:00 p.m. for businesses operating after 10:00 p.m. and as a mobility disabled seniors and i want to access for all for the future of san franciscans that we need and deserve all access and i also want to agree with some of the other speakers that talked about disabled access and i also want to agree with the comments about
immigrant families need to have translation on understanding this program that is to go forward and i think a lot of times, we only see these things in english and not in multi language documents and so i am really sad to hear that even this program is in english. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is robert and i live in and i am not a small business owner but i am someone that has been at restaurants and that is used these shares spaces and i think i've seen a lot of small businesses in my neighborhood and i've been in danger of close or have closed and i've seen statistics that we could lose half of san francisco small businesses and which would be a
devastating impact to our economy i don't think we want to see if that bo happen if and we've seen that 80% of small businesses would want to run a shared space in some form temporary permit and i share concerns about equity but i think it makes sense to a place car space requests shared spaces and we think about it this way the price of admission for using a car parking is those of dollars on a car to own and operate it. is that really the type of policy that we want to enforce it and it's ok to use public land and for car storage as long as you can pay for t. i don't think that's really a good message and i don't think that's
a good alternative. i think cars also add a lot more greenhouse gases to the environment than gas heaters and i would hope that we can also encourage businesses electric heat rather than gas too so i think with those things in mind, i'm all in favor of more shared spaces. thank you. >> caller: hi, my name is eric kaplan and i live in telegraph hill and i love shared spaces. i have long felt that san francisco does not have enough spaces to eat and drink outdoors and that's been the silver line and i hope you make it permanent but i have concerns about the program as proposed and i want
to highlight they're focused on the shared nature of these spaces and the fact that this is how we're talking about how we use public land so the the thing of having business owners approve a shared space this is based on the erroneous idea that parking spaces belong to the property owners. i want to make sure there's public access to these places and i understand that you know, if you are a restaurant that does table service you need to be able to manage your tables and take care of that but, when
you are not currently doing table service on the shared space, i think it should be open to the public 24/7. and serren dip tusly, you know, commercial corridors, where these places are going up, are some of the most transit accessible parts of the city so, these are the parts where we're taking away parking and the parts of the city where we need parking the least because of the wonderful public investment that we made in muni and the other thing is you know, we've heard a lot about how this is privatization of public space but, a third of san francisco households don't own cars and -- >> caller: hi name is rayy tam.
i love the park let since the opening in the summer. dining has been great. the city has been really very festive and it feels great especially out in the north beach and it's a great idea and they allow the restaurants to survive the pandemic and you should continue that and choosing car space for a lot more productive use in the city and i grow the plan you know, that the permanent ones need to be part of the public around when the restaurants or bars close and i go that you should get the consent of a neighbor if you are putting a parklet in front of their storefront age space and it's commonsense and i
hope that this continues and if the fees are prohibitive for some businesses depending on the revenue annual revenue of the business maybe the city can cut those businesses a break so the even playing field before large multi restaurants and multi bar companies like plum jack and versus some small mom and pop restaurants and ones around chinatown and thank you. >> hello, i'm from district 7 and i wanted to call in support of being more permanent for the city and a few reasons why it's a great opportunity for the rising of local economy and just
think that for small businesses, and as well do you understand that there needs to be modifications and the existing past year has been a great m.v.p. to go forward and making more buzz for business language barriers that maybe encountered people disabilities and other equity and as well and we neither going to particularly trying to cheap destinations the last four years i chose not to go to destinations because there's no parking out there at all. the r.o.i. or shared spaces is tremendous in com par ston to one parked car, my vehicle in one location in selective display and can compact street so do r.i. to city and businesses is great and also not
just a culture add but an enhancement to neighborhood activities as well to those that talk about preservation and neighborhoods and it's great expansion and those preservation and from that standpoint of an enhancement so just a really like the idea and i'm hoping some more innovation going for here iteration and to keep your time and to keep investing. >> this is sharky the president of the san francisco small business commission but i'm speaking here today on my own account and not on behalf of the commission. i am here to tell you about over 80% of our businesses that have take advantage of the shared spaces said it's critical to
their survival and i have also public who are over in support of shared spaces and to those that are concerned about privatization of public and we're currently shared spaces representative .04% of all the parking spaces and san francisco and if you put all the shared spaces less than half of the parking lot the giant stadium which is also to a private concern for private benefit so it's a small amount of public space and it's being repurchased from one private use of private oem auto manufacturers and it's now being repurchased and people to have communities and be with each other out in the open and i could not walk for several years as a result of a tumor so i am very and we're entering a period
where we need to change cars and desen ta vicing parking in our commercial corridor and public transit and it's a great start and it builds community and together and out doors and enjoying nature and fresh air and it's been great for our small businesses and it will help restart our economy so thank you so much. >> caller: good evening,
commissioners, peter papadopolis and i want to touch upon a few comments here that we have heard from a number of folks that we think are right on point in highlight a few things we're hearing. and i think that one of the principle things we're hearing is that we're looking for structural equity at this point as we go permanent, i recognize a number of folks here on the city team as well that have been working on this on this and personally trying to assist in difficult situations and that is much appreciated and the step that we want to make sure we're taking now is we're moving no a very clear structure alec witty shift and you heard from my colleagues and others, for example, that people have had a lot of trouble with things like grants and making sure that there's a structural level of support if we row lion grants and make sure it's at a
significant funding level that it can actually sort of lay it level the playing field so we're not as robin alluded to, ex ears baiting existing inequities as we move through recovery and the covid impact and it's fully baked in we agree with the ideas of for example making sure that the fees are some out structured and we might want to think about the income of the owner and the size of the business and revenue and something that structurally absorbed that they're very different outcomes for these different folks who are trying to take advantage of this program and as a lot of us here, know, it's been a challenge for merchants, especially for example our mission street immigrant says you heard, one of them speak a little earlier and it's a big fix we're going to look for and making sure also as
this family owner said, making sure we're getting the input and we're getting the input from our neighbors with disabilities from our immigrant business owners and our small mom and pop that don't have this money up front to late out or tear down, for example, when they're being asked to make changes. they don't have that money and wore going to need that support thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, my name is lieu am and i would like to ask the planning department a much more proper engagement with the community that you are impacting and the current program service larger better resource businesses and the less than locations and puts mom and pop and immigrant businesses and neighborhoods like the mission and at of this
advantage and bus lines and the lacking of party spaces and other issues have created inwe can at this time tee outcomes and as you are hearing from others, there should not be a one size fit all model and we need a proper community engagement from process so provide the feedback so, i do ask that we pass this legislation until we get once again the proper engagement with neighborhoods and mall business owners that are dealing with surviving and providing them the structural support that they need to help i just want to
speak to the outreach powers you know, i think commissioners need to know that what they see on the paper, we checked off and we spoke to these folks and these folks, we saw a much, i was in a very small subset group of business owners and what we saw was a much shorter presentation and it was already done and think how it was and when folks raised questions and concerns,
they were brushed off with no follow-up and because there has been no follow-up, and it's been very contentious and it's actually causing strife because we haven't eased up on businesses with each other and there was no original planning and there has been no larger opportunity to work through something and actually even present ideas because for improvement and we are facing a situation where this is just moving through without any proper response and any proper inputt and zar jones of smta reached out to help today to offer to host a meeting because no proper outreach has been done, thank you.
>> good evening, commissioners. jane natoli calling and i live in the richmond and really appreciate the report and thank you staff for that and i have loved to shared spaces program and it's been one of the few positive side effects of certainly we're hearing a lot about how we can improve it and i think a great way to think about this and a great aspect of how we are thinking about it is how wore going to do it and too much we're asking if i think that this has been a boone for a lot of small businesses the activation we've seen and in places that have previously didn't seem to have much else going on and it's really been something to see you just to see my neighborhoods outside of cars and a year that's so tough to connect it's been great to have
spaces like this and obviously, many people have touched don aspects that need to be improved and i want to see some of that improved here and i don't think the program is perfect and i love the how we approached the fact that we were dealing with a very serious issue and that is how the support our small businesses and our city and someone who might one day want to own a small business in the city, i feel like this is the kind of tool that we need that can make something truly, truly great for a business owner and i think that these are the kinds of opportunities that we need to pivot away from automobiles and
i hope it can be a permanent addition. thank you. >> this is william from accessible san francisco and i'm a resident of district 3 and i appreciate the last friday mr. odd gave a presentation on the proposed permanent program to the mayor's disability council and i won't repeat and i want to focus on the part of this program that one of the slides today referred to as the commercial (inaudible). restaurants and bars that build a platform. the city has had a park let program for many years and full accessibility has been required and for the most part enforced
and as mr. abad said, there were 60 of them developed over the years and in the covid emergency, that has rocketed up to something like 1,500 and with this program is prove the permanent program that could reach 2,000 or 3,000 in the emergency pull together to say many businesses as possible was essential and now there was a lack of enforcement of accessibility and i don't want to defend but i do want to say i understand it and the permanent is different. so, i still appreciate the desire to expedite permiting and delay compliances six months was mentioned but accessibility is different than any other requirement that applies to the outdoor dining areas that are controlled and occupied by the restaurant or bars that built it and that's because unlike all the other requirements, it's civil rights so when one restaurant expands by expanding
their dinning room or adding a (inaudible) in the traditional sense and it has to comply with the a.d.c. and c.d.c. accessibility requirement and when the speakers, mr. scaff, i want to endorse this comment, he is an expert and he is spot on on that point. can you look at section 206.2.5 of the a.d.a. standards and you can look at the same number sessions 206.25 in chapter 11b of the building code and i just would like to see more care given to planning for these spaces to all be. >> thank you, that is your time. >> caller: good evening, commissioners, my name is (inaudible) i'm a resident and a small business owner of miss district. i'm also a business board member
of association and i just want to say how the applicant for gas burning cars in 2021 but not for outdoor spaces and add positivity towards our corridors and these have been spending anywhere from 5,000 to $25,000 on their hair space so far and to ask these business owners to remove them and after just insutting them less than a year ago it's a cool act against our small business communities. on the other hand, i do think that this spaces are a part of our public spaces and should remain that way for everybody to equally utilize and to use this to making it public versus making it private just doesn't seem fair to me since it creates annie quality based on businesses revenues levels and the type of businesses that they have and many businesses close the space off to prevent tagging
to left behind so maybe not allowing them to close it off will result in everybody in the community to pull their weight and figure out ways and solutions to the issues they've been dealing with and we all should be equally dealing with the situation. aside from our income level and with this all said the deline guidelines and upkeep should be enforced open calling to voice
my support for shared spaces and shared spaces is a lifetime to many small businesses, bars, retail establishments and gyms and i can go on and on the when we started constructing our shared space when we were given the use last year, it brought out people from the community and they asked how they could help and it brought people together to s and cars getting broken into and.
>> good evening, commissioners. my name is levi and i live in district 11 and i just wanted to say that i love and they're a fantastic decision to new york city and anyone who has been to europe is they're so charming and exactly this sort of outdoor shared space and a lot of the other colors are solid issues and they need to be addressed and accessibility over that one is the only thing and reiterate what everyone else and (inaudible). i think we should build on the program not scrap it so please make it permanent. >> hi, yes, this is lori thomas
calling about the small business owner and having two restaurants and district 2. and also the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association and i just wanted to say that this program has been so critical to keeping restaurants able to open and most critically to employ workers. with every four to five tables on the sidewalk or in a parking space, we're able to hire at least one if not two people depending on if you are doing lunch or dinner and that has been really really critical because and so, i know that there are many things we need to do and i want to support that as a restaurant owner and a speaking as our membership if we want everybody to comply with the a.d.a. rules and we want to help workout how this can be equitable and that is something that we've voiced and continued
to stand to work as a partner with and on how the permit fees can equitable across this but we just really ask that we de desperately still need this and they're not open and many need these outdoor spaces to think about opening and we've all lost so much money this past year and now we're not sure when we're going to be able to go to a higher capacity inside so this is critical for continue survival. so at this for all the work everybody is doing and i hope we can come to a good solution. >> hello, i'll calling in support of permanent shared spaces and for decades, the free and low cost parking has been a give away to the rich and privileged and the driving to get through the parking spots has been a source of lots of traffic congestion with all the
environmental issues and it entails. parking spots create traffic and i think everyone here that's the experience that we have too much traffic and removing parking for one spot can affect congestion for nearby parking lots but it's to manage all the of the roads faced more rationally and the traffic lanes for high occupancy and bus lanes and for parking meeters and disabled parking spots so if we can promote local businesses, relief traffic congestion and promote of the transit first policy it's a win-win-win to me. thank you for listening. >> good afternoon. my name is eric i'm with and and i think the price is $6,000 to
park so it's extremely high and that does not i am conclude the architect and the materials that you have to purchase and it's a huge cost up front. also, the public commercial space and a lot of these park let's are one parking link long and it could only fit throw tables and if you want to make a space for the public, that only is two spaces for tables so it
really is the visit they're trying to do so it just needs a lot more working out before this moves forward, thank you. >> my there, i'd like to just call to say i'm strongly in support the shared spaces and it's been not only a lifeline during the pandemic but it's really transformed everybody's understanding of about what san francisco can be and my name is david rockman and i live in haze valley and it's amazing to enjoy all the restaurants in haze valley and different businesses and like the other callers, it's clear from the research that reducing parking is going to reduce track and as someone who does not own a car and it makes my neighborhoods in the city that i'm public transit or by bicycle just so much better and the city really is for people and not cars and people go to businesses not cars and i think this would just be such an
amazing thing if we can make it permanent in san francisco and i encourage the commission to make it permanent, thank you. >> i am thankful and i'm being given an second punt to speak and i wanted to say that i also would -- >> we don't give out second opportunities to speak. >> mute me. >> caller: kelly hill with united mission also a business owner and i think one thing you are going to hear mont in these first four items is actually the made for a really strong equity lens and you are hearing from our community and the mission community various places that really need to see these programs and really make that their central framework and this particular program needs a central equity framework to guide all of its functions before its made and public you heard earlier from her parents
worked many years and i want a mission and they have a space to put a parking in front of and they have the longest bus stop in front of their space and we really need to look at ways we can lift everyone up and to reiterate and previous commenters asking for low income businesses already deep in debt to now pay $6,000 in year fee and it's not doable and that's like asking someone to pay 13 month rent when right now rent is the biggest burden on many of these small businesses and the fees need to have an equity lense and take into account elements such as store side and neighborhood income and the revenue and things like that and they would be great to see more meaningful funding attached to the relaunch of this program and low chin and bipoc communities to ensure streets trailing far behind you such as the mission and bayview and places that have seen the brunt have start today catch up and stabilize their cultural ecosystem.
>> my name is martin moon toes and i'm calling in support of shared spaces. when these are permanent, i'd like them to be open to all members of the public regardless of whether or not they're spending money at business and i think parklets are a public good and i think it's not annie efficient use of our scarce public land and these park let's really do expand the ability of folks to enjoy our city streets and our public space so they should be made public and another thing i would note is to make sure that for park let's, that don't use parking spaces that are on the streets and on the sidewalks rather, a clear six-foot minimum passage spaces is strictly enforced due to the fact that people with disabilities, even after the pandemic are going to need to be able to get through the
sidewalks in a safe and comfortable way. other than that, i'm really supportive of this idea and i support equity lenses and it shouldn't delay how this program has worked during the pandemic and thank you. >> caller: i'd lick to add my vis to the list of people who are wanting this legislation to be slowed down and i think it's a great idea for the shared spaces program to be extended and i understand the concerns of those who see businesses that have spent 20,000 or however on conducting a park let and don't want that park let to just been there for years and then don't have any ideas whether or not the program is going to
continue, but as the idea that this program is just going to go on indefinitely, it seems pro mature and it's reasonable to accept for a year for neighbor two years or for however long the pandemic measures continue and but we don't know what the conditions will be like after the pandemic ends and it just seems premature to say ok, let's just make this indefinite because san francisco will be a different city after have restrictions lifted and so it just seems very premature to say, well, let's just make this permanent. and i'm also concerned about the
ada issues and the issues of public access to these spaces because they're public spaces. and so i think there's a lot of kinks that node to be worked out before we make this a permanent thing. >> caller: my nape is sam and i am just for the shared spaces program and it's great and i lived in europe and it's just fantastic how when you travel go anywhere and it's the street for people and for cars and even less valuable than cars is just
i will say i think there will be rules to make sure that you know, it doesn't inflect any burden upon people with limited mobility, leaves the sidewalks clear and are also are protected by construction or street calming or whatever. >> it actually happened i thought earlier this week. all in all, i think it's a great program, but i think this is just the start, and we should, you know, look to implement it equitably and as safely as possible, and if that means taking away more parking spots, i am wholeheartedly in support. thank you.
>> clerk: thank you. members of the public, last call for public comment. need to press star then three to be added to the queue. okay. commissioners, seeing no additional requests to speak from the public, public comment is closed. this is a nonaction item, again, but you may begin your deliberations. >> president koppel: lots of stuff going on. this is a lot of interesting land use things going on here. commissioner tanner? >> commissioner tanner: thank you. just want to thank department staff for working on this, the number of projects. the number of projects that touched this is herculean.
i also want to thank all the community members and business owners who called in to share their insight and experiences. overall, i am supportive of the legislation, but i do have a few questions. can you talk about the legislative issues, specifically, we heard about the availability of platform or platform parklets. can you explain what is required or what is required for the parklets that are -- i forget the term, but are at the grade of the street for accessibility. >> thank you, commissioner tanner. i think our parklet program as well as shared spaces program, access for our seniors as well as those with disabilities are
paramount. we have some really rigorous guidelines that govern how a parklet could be built, so these are inclusive of minimum 48 travel to the parklet deck, 48-inch turnaround, wheelchair access. so we've done this, and we know how to apply those a.d.a. principles, title 2, title 3, those pretty rigorous design guidelines to the parklet. now i do want to say, the comment that had to do with the combination of having a
self-certification procedure for a barring a permit rather than a more customary plan check review, for example, where department staff, city staff are looking at a proposal, do some site analysis, making sure that what is proposed for construction, that the encroachment will meet these essential a.d.a. requirements, so i think we can acknowledge that that hasn't been frank and consistent. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so for the -- for the moveable parklets that are there now, versus what would be in the future, would those have similar access requirements? i'm thinking in particular, do they have to have a ramp or are they just kind of like oh, you can't sit here because you can't get off the curb? what is the access there? >> yeah. it's to ensure access -- if we're talking about outdoor dining, which i think is what
on most people's minds, is to make sure that there is an accessible dining area outside. so in cases where it's, like, specifically, like, kind of infeasible or very complicated to get someone into the parking lane, we don't need to do that because we have the sidewalk as an opportunity for -- >> commissioner tanner: okay. that's great. i think that actually understands the -- i have an echo. i don't understand what's going on. i think that kind of helps to explain to folks what's happening at the parklet, whether it's dining or something else, that there's equivalency provided. i think as the program unfolds, you know, with those folks that have taken advantage of the program, to map out where we may need to have more a.d.a. accessible parking spaces, i do want to acknowledge that folks
who are disabled who need to use a vehicle to get around, for example, if they need to use their own vehicle, there may be blocks where they don't have any parking spaces, but taking a look to see how many a.d.a. spaces that we need, as these spaces are taken up by people, how many spaces we need. just as with loading zones, so either more loading zones or if it's just 15-minute parking may be more appropriate, so if someone's doing a quick errand, that those spaces remain for a variety of activities, whether it's picking someone up or
dropping something or someone off. as for the safety, what's -- it's kind of where a car would park parallel or next to that area? i know this program isn't in existence, but several areas that i've been concerned, like watching someone parallel park to a temporary parklet, if that car backed up too fast, wow, they could run into that table without anything to slow them down. could you speak to that? >> yeah. there is discussion with regard to that barrier that might be required. [inaudible] so again, as with a.d.a., i think with kind of the emergency, you know, kind of version of the program, you
know, we haven't seen that -- been consistently adhered to, and that's, in large part, codifying this, as to the a.d.a. and site design we could veritably post around. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. and then, there's the [inaudible] so it would be with the cost, rather. so with the fee, if someone wants to have a parklet like we've had in the past, they could have the parklet, and that fee would be $1500 is that correct, or there abouts? is that the proposed fee,
something? $1,000? >> it's $1,000. >> commissioner tanner: so if somebody decided, hey, i want to do a parklet. it's not for me, but it would be $1,000, and it would be open not only to their patrons but anybody who's using it? >> correct. >> commissioner tanner: so there is an option that's lower cost. i think it would be interesting to see if there could be some type of sliding scale for businesses, and i don't know what it could be based on. a number of metrics that city already collected when they collect their taxes or business tax information. maybe there's some kind of parklet that's 6,000 or less than 6,000 or more than 4,000 for businesses that are just not able to handle the expense. and then, for the construction of the parklet, i believe in
the mayor's budget, she has significant funding for businesses to help establish this program, is that correct, or would that go towards these types of parklets? >> well, that's correct. in our last supplemental appropriation, which was just enacted a few weeks ago, there is $2.3 million earmarked at the office of economic and workforce development to go towards equity grants, so we will shortly announce a new cycle building off the new cycle that went through february and will go through january. we do hear that on going kind of rent support is one of the things that we need to ensure,
in part of achieving equity. >> commissioner tanner: perhaps. and maybe another thing you could consider is if parklets go over a specific number of parking spaces, maybe there's a fee over 6,000, if they're taking up more of the space, they are taking up more space in front of their business, that's something you could consider, basically greating a greater scale overall. i would say, commissioners, i am supportive of this program overall. it would be a shift to go from a public parklet program shifting to this new model of the program. i do think that the fee difference does incentivize businesses to continue to provide the public parklets, so i think that is a really good way to try to encourage that type of parklet and
accessibility, but i do think that replacing the parking spaces with a parklet, again, not all the car spaces, and having flexibility to use our cars as we need to would be a good switch for the city. i'd be curious to hear about the heating and gas aspects are. i don't know if you want to get into these comments, but thank you for your work on the program. >> president koppel: commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: thank you. i am an enthusiastic supporter of the shared spaces program. i think it has changed how we look at spaces. i believe commissioner tanner asked very good questions, and the questions were raised by the public, so in the interest of time, i'm not going to
repeat those same concerns and questions. what i do want to more about, though, is the new procedure that you are proposing. it used to be a three-day procedure. now, it's a 30-day process, and you made reference to a public hearing. could you talk more about that. is every permit under a public hearing process? where do public hearings occur, and in front of what body? given the amount of cases that the planning commission hears, i'm not sure this would be the appropriate venue, so could you go into more detail about that. >> yes. commissioner diamond, my colleague, monica [inaudible] is here, and can speak to more likely procedural m.t.a. so we are -- part of the reasons driving us from a
three-day to a 30-day process is it does open up more opportunity for both a public process and public hearing, if triggered. so taking the example of a parklet, what would now be requested is a 30-day application of notice be posted -- rather, a seven-day notice of application be posted at the site in that 30-day intergoal. that is for posting of public comment or anyone in the neighborhood to submit support or message of support or objection to the department that that permits that. we then, if objections are filed, customarily, what would happen is that would trigger a public hearing by default. that is only triggered by an
objection if received. >> commissioner diamond: and then in front of which body is the public hearing held? >> the public hearing is held for -- for parklets by the department of public works, which is -- monica, please correct me if i am wrong -- which is the department that issues the permits for the city agencies and the rest of the city departments. for those that might close on saturday and sunday afternoons, that -- for any entities that might close on saturday and sunday afternoons, it's m.t.a. >> commissioner diamond: so it's the p.u.c. and sfmta, those would be the only two bodies that would be holding hearings? >> yes. you talked about appeals, and appeals would go to the board of supervisors. temporary street closures currently have an appeal process that ends at the board
of supervisors. this is not seeking to change or amend that procedure. other appeals get heard by the m.t.a. board. >> commissioner diamond: okay. and when you say that hearings are held in front of m.t.a. or d.p.w., is it in front of commissions or the directors? you know, what is the -- within those agencies, where is the hearing held? >> for -- in the case, for example, of parklet hearings that are triggered by a public notice posting objection, those are heard by a d.p.w. officer sort of as a proctor for the department of public works. and the way that works is the hearing officer will hear the hearing and the director makes
a decision. the m.t.a., there are a couple of different options depending on the street closure being proposed. so for the first two years, hearings are heard by the interdepartmental committee on traffic and transportation. that's a hearing that's noticed. members of icott make a determination of appropriateness and issue a permit. for roadway closures that are seeking or seek to close a roadway on an on going basis in excess of two years, those hearings are actually at the m.t.a. board itself. so if, you know, sort of appropriately, it's received if approximate a neighborhood
wants to keep closing a side street, you know, a few days a week or a couple of days a week, they've done it for two years, they want to do it longer, there's an on going review procedure for it to make it on going or longer, so for that reason, it goes to a legislative body or the m.t.a. board. >> commissioner diamond: okay. just a couple of other questions there. you can go -- the 30-day period would go from the time you post to the public notice until the time the permit is issued, including any hearing or does it go from the time you submit the application? can you go into more detail? >> yes, commissioner diamond, absolutely. the 30-daytime table initiates once the city has received a complete application. so that's turning everything you're supposed to turn in, and not turning everything in in
spurts or drafts, and then, city staff are on the time clock to do the necessary review and analysis, authorize you to go ahead and do your public posting, which does happen and has to happen within that 30 days. >> commissioner diamond: and do the public posting, and if an objection is filed and hold to the hearing and get to the point where the permit is issued, all within 30 days? >> so if a hearing is triggered, you move out of the 30-day turnaround department. we might receive an objection during the seven-day posting period and not be able to schedule you for a hearing until very close for the 30-daytime period lapses. you know, we have to go through due process and public process and considering applications, so in that case, we would have to hold the hearing and then take, you know, review and
approval. >> commissioner diamond: and have you set a time limit for yourself, if a hearing has to be held, how long the process would take? >> that's a really great question, and at the time, the process does not outline a timetable? >> commissioner diamond: so i'd like you to consider this because one of the initial aspects of this program is it has happened extremely expeditiously. one of the things is we won't be in the pandemic situation, but i still think we should be imposing on ourselves some time limit because you're saying, if i understand you correctly, a single objection could trigger a hearing, is that correct? >> right. that's precovid, and that remains unchanged. >> commissioner diamond: okay. so if we're going to have a single objection trigger a hearing, we should set some
time limit when that hearing needs to conclude so that it's not open-ended and it would benefit small business. i think that's a really important revision that should be added to the legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner moore? >> vice president moore: i have been a great supporter of this great program. i continue to be a valiant supporter. this has made the city considered to remain liveable. i think we need to calibrate how we move from temporary to permanent and know that it's going to be consequential, so i
think letting it become normal requires a lot of work, and i think we've got up some great public feedback, some good challenges, that still need to be worked into where we're moving with this. i believe, personally, i would like to have a transition time in which we can further examine the effectiveness as we're moving into more normal times, how the park lets will ultimately, in their three forms, play into -- parklets will ultimately, in their three forms, play into the role that san francisco also considers itself to be. it will not just be the parklet to commercial use, but it is also the adjoining sidewalk which will now become basically the service platform, the
interactive platform between the restaurant and where the food is served. that has an impact on the walkability and the quality of sidewalk life or those people who are not patrons of the restaurant that are taking advantage of this particular arrangement. i think that requires examining what sidewalk widths are 100% appropriate for the commercial parklet, because i describe it, as others have described it, as well, impeding the ability of two or three or four people walking next to each other, will feel crammed next to each other when they're walking by those spaces. it's kind of a moment of conflict, so to speak, and i think that needs to be worked out to the benefit of both those who sit and eat as well
as those who pass by and are just strolling. i'd like to touch, obviously, the comments made on the disability council -- i think it was mr. [inaudible] -- who said that it has not been successfully addressed, and i strongly urge there be more community meetings with multi -- in advantage situations that have not been fully brought into the fold on what we're trying to do here. i think we need to look at sidewalk widths, and we need to look at street widths. i look at grand street, for the frequency of shared space users
can, indeed, make the entire street become more like a food hall rather than a street and supporting businesses who do not use the public space as a shared space but still need to function as a business. quite a few people talked about structural equity, the equity lens. i think that continues to be a very, very important one. community involvement, not one size fits all, fee equity by location and business size, i think that would be something that would be very interesting for you to think about. perhaps not everybody has to pay the same fee, based upon where they are, what the size of the business is, and it's an extra cost that may be
impossible to bear by certain types of businesses. before i forget about it, when we talk about sidewalk widths, there's also topography. i live in district 3, where the majority of streets have a gradient, and with gradient, it becomes more difficult to build shared space or commercial shared space because you need more structure, which is more impacting on the sidewalk that you have. i think that needs to be thought through. so i think, to summarize, it is really calibrating from temporary to permanent and seeing that it's a light-hearded position to the liveability and to the charm of the -- light-hearted position to the liveability and to the charm of the city. that's what i would like you to work on.
thank you. >> president koppel: commissioner imperial. >> thank you. and thank you, [inaudible], for your presentation, as well. i do have questions about implementation in terms of, as you mentioned earlier, that there hasn't been really, apparent, i would say, in terms of the implementation. what is the planning in other city departments thinking right now in terms of, you know, whether it's allocating funds in order to do a more deterrent implementation in terms of a.d.a. accessibility. there may be noise in the measurements. yeah, can you continue to expand that? >> yeah, thank you, commissioner imperial. so yes, absolutely. implementation moving forward is very much going to focus on
coherence and design quality, the critical circulation issue that folks have brought up, we've been hearing that loud and clear. i think as we've done discussion with the mayor's office on disability and others. i think there's two responses that we're working on, which are not necessarily legislative in nature but more programatic. one is the [inaudible], which will offer those in the hardest economically and covid hit geographies, extra resources for capital, extra resources in the form of grants and technical assistance, and then,
the other side, programatically is how we figure out how we have better resource enforcement. that's absolutely part of the tool box. we have to put together to make sure that this is a wider spread success, so -- >> commissioner imperial: yeah, thank you -- thank you on that response. i would -- yeah, i'm sure curious that -- as to whether there would be site visits in terms of the implementations and yeah. i think those are -- as we are developing more accessibility, i think, you know, you know, there are a lot of comments about the a.d.a. accessibility, and i think it's something, in terms of implementation, how -- you know, i think that would be
something that would be prioritized. one thing one of the public commenter mentioned, as well, is the structural equity, and i believe something from meta mentioned that about 30 businesses were applied to the grant but only one business only got -- only got -- or received the funding or the grant. why do you think is that? why do you think there's only one business under latino led businesses people to get the grant? >> yes, and i want to acknowledge my colleague from the office of economic and workforce development, darcie bender, is with us. she oversees the city's s.f. shine program that the commenter referenced, so i will try to answer it, and darcy, if
you have any other input, you can offer it. so i think the amount of funding that the city offered the last cycle was limited, given the number of businesses for the shared spaces equity granted program, we had over 400 applicants, and that was a lot. so what we did was we tried to ensure in the portfolios that there was geographic distribution. of course, there was distribution in neighborhoods that were historically more distressed, but i think we weren't able to get to everyone. that's the more painful reality. the s.f. shines program is a program that was available to shared spaces officers. and darcy, i don't know if you might have any thoughts to
offer on that. >> commissioner imperial: well, it sounds like she's not there, but i think i would like to know -- i mean, i think that's the part of aspect of implementation, too, of the shared spaces. i am supportive of the shared spaces, but the implementation, especially on where we're looking to the equity, again, i think that's another layer of issue that we keep saying as to especially the grant, you know, who are being prioritized, you know, the implementation of the application itself, whether the language access is also being taken into account, as well. the technical assistance of really small businesses in terms of how to navigate. that is the utmost priority when we are thinking about implementation of this program.
and lastly, i'm not going to -- one is the outreach. people were commenting about the outreach with no follow-ups, as well. can you make a comment on that? >> yeah, definitely. what i did hear is we could follow up a second time, third time, with folks we had reached out to for. we did do a big round of listening sessions in the winter. i think some groups, some callers made reference to that, but what i did hear is folks would like another opportunity to get into an even deeper. with some constituencies, we did meet multiple times, with the mayor's disability council and other advocates.
that is -- that was organized by the mayor's office on different times, so i think yeah, we can loop back tonight on folks that have called in on specific issues that we've heard. i think issues around structural equity are issued we can respond to, as well. and jonas, i think darcy was here, but she was not able to respond on the equitable grants, so i don't know if we can let her do that. >> hi. this is darcy. we did not have enough funds to respond to all the businesses that applied to the s.f. shines program. we had over 1,000 businesses
apply, and we've been able to reach over 300 of them. we've launched a second round of funding to let more of the list and hopefully get as close to the 1,000 applicants as possible, but still won't be able to reach all that applied, and can give more information on who did and didn't receive funds. >> commissioner imperial: thank you, miss bender. i think in terms of the implementation, i would suggest to also get feedback on the people that didn't get funding. what would be -- you know, how can that be -- the process be easier for them in order to access this program. i think it's good to have that feedback when we're doing this first round of grants and the other rounds of grants. i do appreciate this, and thank you, mr. [inaudible] for saying
that you would be doing other performs of outreach. i think the other commissioners mentioned [inaudible] i think the community can answer in terms of, like, whether revenue, you know, what -- who are the people that should be priorities, whether it's based on income or equity tab when we are looking at those programs, so those are my comments, and thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner, and thank you, darcy. >> clerk: okay. if that concludes commissioner comments on this matter, i've heard a request from multiple commissioners that we need a break after those long informational hearings. we've been nonstop since 1:00 p.m., so through the chair, we are going to have a ten-minute break, but through.
-- through the chair, we will have a hard resume in ten minutes. sfgovtv, we're going to take ten minutes, and i recommend that no one leave the webex meeting so that there is no rejoin issue associated with the technological glitches we've had in the past. and i would remind you that sfgov might be listening, so i would ask you to mute your microphones during this break. why don't we rejoin at 7:18 or do you want to make it a clean 7:20, commissioner koppel? >> president koppel: let's make it ten minutes. >> clerk: okay.
ready, set, go. >> clerk: okay. members of the public, welcome back to the san francisco planning commission meeting on april 22, 2021. commissioners, we left off on your calendar on item 9, 2021-002933-pca, to simplify restrictions on small businesses, adoption of planning code amendments. staff, are you ready to make your presentation? >> yes. i think we'll have some comments from the mayor's office. >> hello, commissioners, and thank you for taking the time to hear this tonight. i know this is a marathon meeting. [inaudible] seeing the impact of the year of the covid-19 pandemic, we all know that our
businesses are suffering. many of them are looking at ways to adapt to meet the changing needs of their customers and are facing [inaudible] however like in previous downturns, we know we will have business owners taking that leap into entrepreneurship, inspired by a chance and an leap. [inaudible] the second was to enhance flexibility for businesses, and the third is to provide protections and opportunities for entertainment and cultural establishments. we've been working with constituents to make sure they understand this piece of laejs. in that work, we have two pieces that we intend to --
legislation. in that work, we have two pieces that we wish to engage on. we will be retaining the linear foot [inaudible] to address feedback that we heard from that neighborhood. finally, the historic preservation commission head this legislation yesterday and recommended approval with an amendment to remove notification from sections 1006.2 and 11111.1. in addition to the historic preservation commission, this legislation has also been heard and received recommendation from the entertainment commission and will be presented to the small business commission at their hearing next week. with that, i would like to turn it over to my colleague, sheela nickolopoulos, who will outline the details of this legislation.
>> clerk: sheela, i believe you're still muted. how about i unmute you from my end? >> thank you very much. oh, it's late, and we're all feeling a little rusty. good evening, commissioners. i'm sheela nickolopoulos from the planning department. this is a small business recovery act, and i'll be walking you through the phases. there's three goals in supporting neighborhood
businesses here. to further cut bureaucracy, enhancing flexibility by implementing recommendations from the city's economic task force to support short-term recovery and long-term recovery of our businesses and to support the shared spaces goals that you just heard robin talk about, and supporting the arts. performance and art space were some of the first to close during the pandemic, and they'll be some of the last to open. in the past decade, with the rise of on-line shopping, brick and mortar has shifted to less transactional and more consumer retail. prior to the pandemic, retail start-ups and costs were a
challenge to many establishments especially given the high cost of living. in the past decade, one retail sector has grown much more than any other, and that's dining. this chart shows the extent to which jobs in the dining city has boomed compared to other industries. restaurants were hit especially hard during 2008 recession and then again during the pandemic. so we can take a quick look at covid impacts. we've seen covid impact the retail environment in several noteworthy ways. the pandemic pushed some to adjust their retail operations, some to close temporarily, and some to close permanently. new legislation, including our local prop h, are changing the
local regulatory environment for retail, and dramatic change is changing how we dine, shop, and socialize. we're also seeing renewed interest in the 15-minute neighborhood because as workers stay at home and transit is limited, it's underscoring the importance of meeting our daily needs near home. more on impacts specifically to neighborhoods, patrons, businesses, and employees. in neighborhoods, the right lane -- neighborhood commercial districts rely on tourism and regional visitors, like chinatown or the haight, will recover in different ways from a neighborhood district that caters to local residents, such as bruin and portola. there's been a 630% increase in residential move out rates in
downtown, chinatown, and nob hill. on-line sales have increased as more people shop from home. some speculate that consumers are eager to return to old habit, while others posit that new shopping habits will remain. so to give a summary of the covid response that we've seen to date, the city has had numerous programs for grants and loans, fee deefrl programs for taxes, fees, and registration. there's a delivery fee cap
which caps the commission on third party services. there's the commercial eviction moratorium, which is in place through the summer, and then, a right to recover program, by $11 million for 11,000 workers facing covid hardship. also, the recovery response was that last summer, following the shelter in place orders and anticipating severe economic [inaudible] from the pandemic [inaudible] so specifically related to neighborhood businesses, the task force, in their october report last year made these five recommendations. one, to redesign building permit processes and eliminate unnecessary permit processes not directly related to health and safety. extend and support the shared
spaces program, rethink the spaces that host arts, resulture, and entertainment uses, and catalyze recovery through the arts. also significant and note forthy was the recovery effort to prop h. so in november of last year, voters approved prop 49, which substantially reduced the patch work of regulations on neighborhood businesses. the most significant change is the creation of a 30-day permit processing system for principlely permitted used. -- principally permitted uses. now, [inaudible] in here. so first, this ordinance will expand the prop h guarantee to to -- so under prop h, the 30-day
permitting, this ordinary lance will expand that all retail. agencies issuing mandating and constructional operational permits, also including planning, d.b.i., fire, d.p.h., and public works, this ordinance would expand this system to benefit more businesses. the 30-day permit processing for principally permitted businesses reduces time and cost for applicants and provides a valuable sense of certainty for these applicants, as well. this is -- this will save six to eight weeks in a small business being able to open their doors.
this is already in place for the neighborhood commercial zoning, and notification change of use categories and mixed use zoning areas will also be eliminated through this effort. neighborhood notification has been a useful tool for neighborhoods that want to track uses. next, the small business recovery act will expand access to expedited conditional use hearings for bars, night time entertainment. medical cannabis dispensaries, retail services. this expedited processing allowing adequate time for -- allows adequate time for community input. next is the removal of an
abandonment provision for c.u.s. in a bar, with a conditional use authorization were to close, and the space sits vacant for three years, the bar would have to repeat the c.u. process. this would allow commercial vacant spaces to be occupied more quickly when the next use is the same as what we call the abandoned use. this comes with a substantial margin of error if there are nearby vacant storefronts or if the use isn't clear to the applicant. the difference between a limited use restaurant and restaurant may not be clear to
the applicant who's actually collecting the data. it may not be a useful measure. this change will not impact s.u.d.s with concentration caps on certain uses, and there are some exceptions to this. the important note is that under prop h, restaurants and limited restaurants are permitted at almost all n.c.s for the next three years, so the short-term impact of this chase will just be for the 23 zoning districts that require c.u.s for bars, 51 total, so about half. i want to emphasize this does not change formula retail control. it just removes the requirement to have this linear foot accommodation. [inaudible] of one time of use in a certain location in order to contribute to variety of uses. so this guideline can still be
considered via other tools such as discretionary view. in addition, the larger policy question about concentrations or clustering of uses is part of the department's citywide retail strategy. so the [inaudible] and we are assessing this policy regarding concentrations, but the current process is creating a burden for some neighborhood businesses. in our next category of changes enhanced the possibility, there are four times. so first, prop h permitted outdoor activity areas and n.c.s and n.c.t.s with specific limitations. they had to be on the ground floor, operating between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., not operating associated with a bar, and it had to include only seating and not standing for patrons, and alcohol had to be dispensed inside the premise and be outside. so this would permit rooftop uses with the same uses where outdoor spaces are permissible.
any rooftop operation would be subject to health safety and egress requirements, and i want to note that in almost all n.c.s, restaurants would be limited to rooftop operations only on single-story buildings because rooftop uses and n.c.s are generally prohibited on the third story and above. the -- this -- the small business recovery act will allow restaurants, not just limited restaurants, to host catering businesses. this will give businesses and entrepreneurs more opportunities to share space and operating cost. as i mentioned, the dining industry has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, and this will offer another change to the recovery. this would allow a.d.u.s to be constructed in the rear of commercial space if a minimum of 25 feet depth commercial
space is maintained regarding the street front. in most cases where the commercial space is flush with the sidewalk, this means that residential can take over any amount of ground floor, except for the front 25 feet. so the proposed change would allow a.d.u. allowances under the same provisions as [inaudible] as a.d.u.s must be an accessory to a residential, this would only apply to mixed use buildings that include commercial and residential. this may give property owners more flexibility to produce housing and produce smaller retail spaces, and any a.d.u.s would be subject to all applicable rent control policies [inaudible] under our existing a.d.u. programs. lastly here, simplified retail definitions. so the [inaudible] as part of general retail sales and
service. it would also [inaudible] so this reduces the overall number of separate retail definitions and is intended to decrease the use of change of needs permits, particularly those so similar, like personal use gym and instructional services. this saves businesses time, costs, and confusion. on the ground floor, this would [inaudible] where trade shops are currently -- do require a conditional use. little bit more here. supporting arts and culture. small business recovery act includes several changes to the planning and police codes that will support arts and entertainment. so first, the small business recovery act will permit temporary uses areas in outdoor entertainment areas in structures for a minimum of two
years. this amendment would create a new planning code section 205.8 toen jabl the just add music permits, the j.a.m. permits that robin talked about, and it is implemented under the emergency declaration, and this is the amendment that will allow it to continue. there is a proposed new requirement for conditional use to remove night time entertainment uses for the next two years, and this is to protect against the loss of venues. third, the small business recovery act will remove planning code requirement to impose certain predetermined conditions in order to propose a c.u. for the current project.
this change removes the requirement that the planning commission impose the conditions that may be duplicate of the same conditions that the entertainment commission may be applying, as well. it would establish a nighttime use for continuing entertainment operations, and those are businesses that have been in operation for ten years or more but may not have the permits that they need x to this would provide a -- need, so this would provide a path for businesses to get current on their requirements. in addition, there's several proposed amendments to the police code that would support arts and culture. this would allow a single unamplified retail performer in a venue until 10:00 p.m. the second change would be to
remove a restriction on one-time event permits and one time outdoor amplified sound permits that limit them to 12 days in a 12-month period, and removing them would allow a farmers market or other than venue to host them more than 12 times a year, and the other would allow them to close at 11:00 p.m. rather than 10:00 p.m. there's two modifications that i'd like to discuss. upon further review by staff, we recognize that the process for certain historical review cannot be completed in 30 days for principally permitted [inaudible] there's only been three requests for review of these permits out of 1,000
applications in the past nine years. administrative review would continue, or department review would continue, and appeals could be made through the board of appeals. in addition, the second myfication here is to retain the controls for fitness uses in urban mixed use because we're getting rid of the gym definition but we want to make sure that this type of use has maintained the square foot patrol. and now [inaudible] so when we look at equitable outcomes for retail, we have to look at what this means for three populations: business owners, staff, and patrons. in this case, the loss of
process to communities can be addressed via other tools, like the notification tool that we've set up for the mission. decreasing the regulations for small businesses makes opening a small business easier, and that is the intent of this legislation. the city's existing complex process for opening a small business requires substantial financial capital and the knowledge of experience of how to navigate a bureaucracy. it takes money, time, and navigating through the process. this requires a high tolerance for uncertainty and risk and favors business owners with resources. so business owners with limited time and capital tend to be black, american indian, or people of color. therefore, the process is inherently equitable.
these regulatory changes will be augmented by existing programs and efforts that support new business owners, such as technical stance with lease negotiations and so many of the other programs that are run through the office of economic and workforce development and through planning. making it easier to open a small business also benefits employees. leisure dining and hospitality have seen the most significant job losses in the past year, so supporting those businesses can help bring back those jobs. equitable outcomes for retailers that focus on patrons are particularly impact for planning to impact. in looking for equitable outcomes for patrons, we have to look at the land use control and funding for vulnerable
populations, which is why this legislation should be seen as one step. oewd invests in neighborhoods, works with c.b.o.s in local communities. within planning map 2020 and other efforts, we're looking for new ways to support new businesses, we will be looking at the general plans policies regarding retail. thank you for your time. i want to let you know that we've received [inaudible] from the san francisco chamber of commerce, the san francisco district of merchant associations, the yerba buena community benefit district, east cut c.b.d., hayes c.b.d., the golden gate restaurant
association, and we've received one letter of opposition, from the s.f. land use coalition. thank you for your time, and i look forward to hearing your questions. >> clerk: thank you. if that concludes staff's presentation, we should take public comment. members of the public, if you'd like to speak to this matter, you need to do so by pressing star, then three to enter the queue. you'll have two minutes. when you hear your line has been unmuted, that's your indication to begin speaking. >> hi. good evening, everyone, and thank you for all the time and effort everybody's put into this. my name is lori thomas, and i'm the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association, representing hundreds of restaurants and cafes in san francisco. i'm calling in to support the small business recovery act. our organization represents many of these restaurants and cafes that have struggled and
need ways to continue to pivot and move to survive. our members' survival is key to san francisco's recovery and bringing people back to work. we believe this legislation as presented is intelligently building on proposition h, allowing for restaurants and cafes to open more quickly in the area that's have been so drastically decimated by the pandemic, including our downtown corner and the union square area, and it's also provided increased flexibility for our chefs and caterers to work out of their kitchens, helping to provide additional revenues and generating opportunities in one of the industries that has taken such
a hit in the past year. we thank you for your time and for everybody's time and efforts. good night. >> commissioners [inaudible] calling in with some concern about this legislation. we have shared this concern with the office of economic and workforce development and hope to resolve them as this legislation moves through the legislative process. particularly concerned around the abandonment clause lum nation. we believe -- clause elimination. we believe that the deletion of the conditional use abandonment provision is very concerning in chinatown and citywide.
we also have concern around the provision that allows accessory dwelling units in commercial spaces. as you all are aware, chinatown has very precious commercial spaces but also very narrow and small commercial spaces, and we don't really see how the code can exist and provide the flexibility that maybe other zones is needed. so we have to continue to work with oewd. we also hope that we can take the time to get this legislation right. this is pretty expensive changes to the planning code, and we believe concerned that this legislation is going pretty quickly in a presentation that oewd had with
chinatown merchants, the language was not available to the business owners and leaders. now, we're at commission. it seems like the timeline is pretty accelerated, and so wanted to make sure that we take the time for the complete analysis of this. >> good evening, commissioners. peter papadopoulos with the mission analysis agency. i think we were having constructive dialogue about those items and the wide ranging concerns in the mission and other vulnerable
communities, but i'm very concerned to hearing how removing protections and replacing them with other mitigations might produce equitable outcomes. and at the same time, we want to, instead, add certain c.u. cultural protections for things like entertainment [inaudible] like the previous caller said, moving very, very fast, considering how much concern there is over these items. lots of these things in here could be helpful, and that's the feedback we're getting so far from community members and businesses. a.d.u.s on the ground floor could be helpful. could we make it something
meaningful, like a.d.i. levels? other ideas, like trade shops, yes, we'd like to move it into retail, but why don't we find another way to do it other than strike blue collar working space from the code? we don't want to pull back any of this stuff. this legislation should expand, so let's find ways of doing all that stuff together. lastly, because i don't have time to get into all the points, let's just think we hear one size fits all, we think of moving away from equity. we want to make sure that all these items lineup with all the businesses struggling today on our corridors. thank you.
>> hello. thank you for your time. i'm [inaudible] with the san francisco chamber of commerce, and on behalf of all of our members, i would like to offer our support for this legislation. the san francisco chamber of commerce actively supports policies that uplift our small business community which contributes greatly to san francisco's vibrance and culture. thank you all for your time. >> hello.
i'm stan hayes. i'm the president of the telegraph hill dwellers. first off, let me be clear. we strongly support efforts to help our small businesses survive and recover. it's been a tough time for everybody. they need our help. while we support the stated intent of this ordinance to help small businesses, we're concerned about its details, how fast it's moving, and that it primarily helps the entertainment industry, not our struggling neighborhood-serving mom-and-pop businesses that make so many of our commercial corridors so special. among other things, we're especially concerned that the proposed ordinance would open up rooftops to restaurants and bars. it would allow one time entertainment and amplified
sound permits up from 12 a year. it would wave late night controls for every to two years. it would weaken late night noise restrictions, limit time for public and h.p.c. review of administrative decisions affecting historic resources. it would reduce public notification and comment on c.u.s. it would delete c.o.a. findings for formula retail. it would delete the concept of abandonment that's been in the code for years while protecting at the same time places of entertainment. and finally, it would weaken required c.u.a. findings for restaurants and bars. so let me repeat, we strongly support efforts to help our small business community, but we cannot support this ordinance as it's drafted.
we ask the commission to please make this item informational tonight and continue this item. send it back and give us all more time to consider this complex legislation. thank you. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. >> good evening, commissioners. ozzie reaume with san francisco land use coalition. this legislation, obviously, we are all in sympathy standing with the san francisco restaurant industry that has been going through amazing downturn economic hardship. my heart goes out to them, so this is not about whether or
not we are supporting the restaurants and bars and the workers and owners, but the -- our struggling small businesses cannot possibly compete with formula retail stores, so opening the flood gate on chain stores is a death sentence on our mom-and-pop jobs. secondly, our commercial spaces are not secluded. that's why we have people that live on top of the work spaces. ground floor is retail, top floors are where people live, and i cannot imagine how this is going to be a noise nightmare for people that live above these commercial spaces. so this is one thing that, you know, nobody is taking into consideration. the night time entertainment on rooftops is going to be a huge issue for people who live in those n.c.t.s and n.c.d.s as
well as the nearby streets. in noe valley, we have jersey street and elizabeth street, and these people are going to be totally subjected to the noise, late-night noise that they didn't opt for. and also, the historic preservation commission and expediting that and streamlining that is very much a concern. the h.p.c. is charged with preserving our historic resources, so limiting the time for h.p.c.s decisions is wrong headed, and it's nothing to do with covid recovery. to summarize -- >> clerk: thank you, miss reaume. that's your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is debbie horne, and i am here, representing my
husband, paul miller, on behalf of the royal [inaudible] both in the mission district. this legislation is crucial to support our small business community. this would open up doors for many artist musician friends of ours who have amazing creative ideas but who presently would never take the chance of going through the time-consuming process. in s.f., it can take years to open something. this is not acceptable, especially for those who cannot navigate the insane system and have limited capital and language barriers. i urge you to support this legislation. please help small businesses. thank you. >> good evening. this is larissa with united to save the mission, and i have to say that i feel blindsided to
see this presentation and its representation as an equitable outcome. a lot of the proposals would actually destabilize our community and create a threat to our small businesses because what they're really doing is streamlining some of these -- you know, streamlining businesses that have -- such as formula retail businesses that have the capabilities to actually get through a process and actually weakening our protections, and very deeply concerned about small p.d.r. what we've seen is they can get
$10 a square foot, and they push out our traditional p.d.r.s, and we have c.u.s for a reason. it is well known to planning and to this team that we are moving cultural district expansion and the american indian cultural district has come into play, and we are all working on s.u.d.s, so we are asking for time to wrap our brains and process this piece and to actually move some of these things through our s.u.d. so that they can have an equity lens, and that has been denied to us, and it's been moving through at this amazingly fast pace, and we ask for it to be pulled back from this hearing today. we're just in initial discussions on this, and these are big, big things while we're simultaneously working on s.u.d.s, and this code would
have to be amended as soon as the s.u.d. is complete. it just doesn't make any sense. thank you. >> hi. my name is michael nolte, and i'm a community organizer, and first, i would like to ask for a continuance on this item. i'd like to note -- have a question answered about what constitutes a concentration of uses. it was brought up in the presentation, but it's not clear to what -- how many uses would be forming a kentration. also concern -- concentration. also concerns about formula retail when it's large. i've watched formula retail come into, like, union square
and it sells alcohol, and all the nearby alcohol licensed small businesses all go under. this is doing a lot of sweeping changes, one size fits all. it doesn't seem to be the actions to be taking at this time. i also have concern about amending the police code from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. for -- you know, that's changing the noise ordinance. that's not proper notification to the community that, you know, they're going to be told that they're going to be left awake for another hour, especially when they have to get to work the next day. so, you know, i really have some concerns about -- you know, i do support small businesses, especially mom-and-pops, but this is kind of a blanket of a bunch of
different prongs going all different ways, and it's not seeing -- this is the first time i've heard about it, so i'm really concerned. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for your dedication. catherine howard. this legislation is new to most people in san francisco, and it's taking them by surprise. there is a feeling that covid is being used as an excuse to ram through the process. this seems to benefit restaurants more than other businesses and especially more than the residents living near the restaurants. planning controls protect san francisco as a unique homes where they can raise their children in neighborhoods that
are distinct, quiet, and safe. i'm very disappointed in the historic preservation commission. we all know that the planning commission is a dead end 99% of the time. yes, san francisco is technically a city, but more than that, it is a collection of neighborhoods, each with a new character, and each with a business district that should serve that neighborhood first and fit in with the family life of nearby residents. the legislation has blindsided many of us. your legislation should be postponed and a robust
discussion should be put in place to discuss how it would affect surrounding neighborhoods. thank you for your consideration. >> hello again. william railing, accessible san francisco, and a resident of district three. i would like to comment on the rooftop proposal, which is section 202-a-7, and this change will allow and, i guess, expedite restaurant expansions to rooftops. now i realize this is a planning approval and a permit for any construction will still be required, but for those interested in actually doing it, i just would like to point out a couple of issues to be aware of. restaurants are all public accommodations, and while, in certain cases, it might be
slightly easier to get out of parking with the outdoor level, generally speaking, vertical access is going to be required, so plan for that. another issue that is an interesting one that comes up, especially in a city like ours, is the building was not constructed for the weight of a crowd of people on the roof typically, so that's just another thing to be aware of in the -- in the planning, and i'm sure that the d.b.i. will address that in the -- later in the process for people that do this permit, so thank you very
much. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is [inaudible] and i'm a resident and small business owner of the mission district? i am a member of the mission business district, and i started my business in 2019. today was the day that i picked up my final permit after almost two years of work. in this process, i have spent hundreds of hours on designing my own planning because i couldn't afford an architect for a simple remodel, then on permitting processes because i couldn't afford a permit expediter, and finally, hundreds of hours on community outreach, which is all planning threats in the neighborhood, and threats and manipulation from some of the neighborhood nonprofits at the same time, resulting in an emotional and financial roller coaster for the past two years of my life. since you talk about social and
racial equity, let me remind you that i am an asylum seeker from iran and nonbinary person trying to open my own business. there is no way that the current system in place is helping racial and social equity and that is in any way encouraging people like me to start a business. it is impossible to have seen -- because i've seen and experienced this, so i thank the planning department, and especially sheela nickolopoulos for supporting this. thank you. bye.
>> hello, commissioners. this is sharky laguana. i am the president of the san francisco small business commission, speaking on my behalf and not as the president of the small business commission. as a small business owner constantly in contact with the small business community, i don't have to tell you that our community is drowning. it is being crushed, i can't tell you how many people i know that have gone into bankruptcy, and we can all see it driving down the streets, the vacant storefronts all over the place. our mindset of our city has to change. we don't have the luxury of spending lots of time analyzing, trying to come up with the perfect policy that's going to handle everybody's problems perfectly. we have an urgent crisis right now, which is there's a lot of
people out of work, and there's a lot of people -- a lot of empty storefronts, and our commercial corridors need vibrant and occupied commercial corridors in order to be healthy and full, and the way we create -- in my view, the way we create equity in business ownership is we make it easy and inexpensive for people to own businesses. we saw in the paper the other day that jason from [inaudible] had to give up his multiyear journey to try to open an ice cream store. if we make it that hard for anybody to open a business, how can we support people anywhere? we have to make it easier for people to open a business, and this legislation is a step
forward. this is an urgent crisis. listen to the business owners. listen to the business community. we need to be able to move forward, we need to encourage young entrepreneurs to start their businesses, and this is an important step in making that happen, and that is the real equity, in letting people able to become business owners themselves. >> good evening, commissioners, and thank you for being here so late. i am asking you tonight not to adapt these changes right now. as it stands right now, it just pits the business community against the neighbors, especially in the entertainment sector. i mean, to have noise until
11:00 p.m. at night and have people partying on the rooftops? people need to go to work the next day, and kids need to do their homework. unless it's a commercial corridor, without people living in the area, i think some amendments have to be made, more than what have been made, so please, would you ask this be continued? thank you so much. >> hi. i just have a few points. i'm totally for streamlining and making it easier for small mom-and-pop nonformula retail businesses to get through the process, and everybody's known that for years, so if you can
pull that out of this major wipeout of san francisco and get that going for the small businesses, i think many of us would be in favor. not everybody, because they don't support the mom-and-pop small businesses. and to sneak in breaking through what people worked on for years to try to preserve the neighborhoods, for, you know, formula retail, i think it's a company on 11 storefronts or restaurants or whatever, their formula, so they're not mom-and-pop. get that out of that. we worked very hard on that over and over and over again, and now, it's being snuck into this. yes, we have to rush some permits and openings for the mom-and-pops and small
businesses, but you need to remove that and put the rest on -- and do a community outreach. i only found out about this today, and i'm a community activist. you have not done that, and you need to go out to the people. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric arguella, calle 24 cultural district. we have to think about what makes san francisco unique. we have so many things that make san francisco different. we have commercial corridors that are different. we have to take that into
consideration when we do something that affects things so broad. here in the mission, we have equity issues that we need to look at, cultural differences, economic differences, social issues. those are key things that we need to look at in order for had to work for us here in the mission, so i just want to point that out that, you know, everybody neighborhood is different. what's good for one does not work in the next. thank you very much. >> clerk: go ahead, caller. caller, are you prepared to submit your public comment? >> hello. my name is rainy chan,
architect, district 5. i agree with a number of the business -- small business owners, especially about the ice cream owner, who took two years and $200,000 who tried to get a permit and ultimately failed because the city threw up one road block after another, and the young iranan iranan -- iranian lady. it's just a really bad city
bureaucracy that needs to change. i do understand sneaking things into formula retail, and that needs to change, as far as undermining mom-and-pop businesses under the preservation. but the time is really short for many businesses, so i suggest either you guys move forward with the legislation and take out the controversial things, including the night club with the potential noise, but make sure that everything else goes through, okay? thank you.
>> good evening. my name is robin fruckman. i live in district 5. as someone who's done some [inaudible] on our small business laws and particularly around land use as recently as last year, i think it's surprising just how many limitations there are on small businesses. but when you look at them all, it should not be surprising that an ice cream shop has to pay $200,000 on permits before giving up when they would otherwise have to pay $120,000 at least just to finish an ice cream shop. that was due to a change in permitting model eliminated in prop h, and it would be
eliminated in this bill for the eastern neighborhoods. there are a lot of changes that scare people simply because a lot of people treat small businesses as a change of san francisco rather than as a part of san francisco. these are a bedrock of san francisco's economy, and if we don't appreciate them, a lot of them will disappear. we've seen that -- just how many have closed during the pandemic, and a lot of businesses were really on the precipice before that. you know, many businesses have been able to hire because of the pandemic. many have reduced hours or personnel. without the legacy business program, how many of our long running businesses would still be open? there are some things that are
controversial which maybe should give people some pause. i think anything involving formula retail should be looked at extremely close. but i think one thing i haven't heard a lot tonight is the equity outreach of prop h. 75% of applicants are people of color -- [inaudible]. >> clerk: thank you. that's your time. >> thank you. i'll leave it there. >> hi. hello again. this is eric cathlynn. i live on telegraph hill. i dwell here, if you will. i am strongly in support of these planning code amendments. i think they're a major step in the right direction. i don't think they go far enough. we make it way too hard for people to open and run a small business in san francisco, and this is a major reason why we are facing a retail vacancy
crisis, including right in my neighborhood, and it's sucking the light and vibrancy out of our streetscape and our neighborhoods. also, personally, i would love to see more rooftop bars. i can only think of a handful in san francisco, but all of them are extremely popular, and people like them, and i think it's a concept that has legs. i think we should try it out more. thank you. that's all i have to say. >> hi. i am the president of the small business commission, but i am speaking today as a small business owner. i don't think anyone who has never owned a small business in san francisco can understand how complicated and humiliating the process was even before the
coronavirus, the daily humiliations that we're put through in the permitting process that directly lead us to not be able to live or function in the city was so stressful, it's hard for me to be put into words. this was a time where we treated small businesses like weeds, where we would hack them down and others would pop up. before covid, we had record vacancies. our industry was suffering greatly. post covid, we are absolutely in free fall. we are at the possibly lowest point we can be. artists have left san francisco. we make it so difficult in the city that people cannot survive here, and we had almost a sterile environment even before
covid, so i'm asking you to put forth these rules. there are no giant retail establishments that have 12 or 13 or 14 locations. so the idea that this is going to open up the opportunity for mcdonalds or whatever is not true. i'm just asking you to take a serious look at this. we need to fundamentally look at this, otherwise, i guarantee you the only thing that's going to be left is going to be amazon and delivery companies left in san francisco, which is exactly what was happening before covid. thank you. i yield the rest of my time. >> hi. this is manny yekutiel. i am on the m.t.a., but i'm
i'm excited that there are folks on this commission and in this city willing to do the difficult thing in putting this forward. i hope you will be a part of that work, and i thank you so much for hearing my comments tonight. thank you very much. >> hi. my name is marie sorenson with calle 24. let's continue this legislation, and leave it at that. i want to know whose harebrained idea that would think that rooftop entertainment and dining, meaning bands, would be a good idea? do you remember the big fight that medjool had with bands on their roof, and they shut it
down? please rethink these ideas that you have because they're terrible. any ways, that's all i have to say. thank you. >> hi. i'm [inaudible] calling in support of the legislation. why do we forbid so many businesses? as a resident, i don't like walking past empty storefront after empty storefront, especially when it's empty because of year-long processes and holding permits before it even gets there. that's not equity. we deserve good things, too, so i urge you to approve these amendments. thank you for listening.
>> okay. members of the public, last call for public comment. if you wish to comment on this matter, press star, then three. seeing no additional requests to speak, public comment is closed, commissioners, and the matter is now before you. >> president koppel: before i called on commissioners, i just had a question for staff. i don't know if this is available in the packet or maybe someone that could address the electronic coordination between departments on this. >> i can chime in. >> president koppel: okay. >> currently, in the prop h system, we are using electronic plan review to review permits in 30 days, you know, just logistically, taking a paper around to seven different departments and making sure
that it gets done is really challenging, so we have been utilizing the digital system, and i'll let liz chime in. >> hi. [inaudible] for planning. don't have anything to add other than we had a pilot program with prop h which seemed to be the only way as a totality as a city to make this work. this is going to exponentially expand the number of businesses where 30 days is our target. we're going to need to be figure out the best way to process these permits moving forward. >> president koppel: great, but electronically would be a lot quicker. >> absolutely. >> president koppel: anyone else? commissioner diamond? >> commissioner diamond: i have to share, i was really
disheartened to read the fate of the ice cream guy. most of us were on the commission and heard that matter, and to hear that even after all of that, he had spent $200,000 and couldn't get through the building department. so my question for staff is, these amendments are to the planning code and some to the police code. you know, what are we also doing so that small business owners who get through don't die in the planning department? what changes are you considering to expedite the process? >> i think the most notable one is the expansion of prop h. that really, that guarantees that 30-day review by all permitting agencies, so that's what the electronic makes that
possible. it goes through planning, it goes through d.b.i., and it can get through d.p.h., as well, whereas before it would hop from one agency to the next, now, it can happen simultaneously. >> i'll just time in that that particular shop was subject to the 311 30-day notification. there will no longer be that 30-day delay. >> commissioner diamond: if that ice cream shop owner were to apply now, he would be facing a much shortened or expedited process? >> yes. >> commissioner diamond: so i hear the concerns, and i recognize that there's a lot going on in this ordinance, and
there are many parts of it that i am very, very much in favor of. there are a few that give me pause, but i agree with the two on the small business commission that spoke about the crisis facing our small businesses. they're a critical part of the city, and when i look at the entirety, this does a good job at minimizing the obstacles faced by small businesses going forward. i recognize, also, that we are
a big, vibrant city, and that night time entertainment is a part of what goes along with being a city, and we ought to be experimenting with the expansion of these uses. it may not -- some of the stuff that we have in here may not work out, and it may require additional refinements and amendments, but taken as a whole, i believe this is an important package of provisions, and i am willing to support it. >> president koppel: commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. so this is a really interesting piece of legislation. got a lot in it, and i want to kind of generally align myself with commissioner diamond's question -- or point of view and perspective, and just to all the business owners who called in who have had such a hard time, and particularly the
woman who's from iran, just the level of toil that it takes to open a small business, this is not necessary. this is a product of our making. these are policies that we've designed. there's nothing that, you know, that's necessary about the way that we decide to permit our businesses. we have the control of the city to try to make how we want our permitting processes to be, but ultimately, i've observed that it is too hard to open a business, and god bless all the people who decide to open a business and keep a business open in san francisco. just to clarify, this is only for the formula retailers that have between 11 to 20 worldwide locations, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so as one person pointed out. these are not the chains that
are large worldwide, these are small formula retailers or something like that? >> we want to emphasize is to take those smaller sort of -- urinal, they're home grown retail, and put them in a three-month process to get their c.u. it does not change the requirement to get their c.u. we're not changing the controls on formula retail at all. >> commissioner tanner: okay. so focusing on a certain type of retail, and just for the public to understand and commissioners, they still need a c.u., which may or may not be given, just that you're going to be reviewed in a certain time frame.
>> yes. >> commissioner tanner: so director hillis, i've got a question for you. maybe new businesses aren't opening quite yet. this may be a time of uncertainty, but is this a city priority to process these things very, very quickly, and i'm just wondering how the departments are shifting quickly to permits being reviewed from applications being reviewed? >> director hillis: yeah, and i think we've had a couple of months under prop h to start that. we've got those processes in place that we've been able to work with d.b.i. and fire and the health department in kind of getting that in order so that we can -- we can ramp it up and do it for higher volume. >> commissioner tanner: okay. that's great to hear, and i do hope that we're able to put our
staff on this because it's certainly -- hopefully, we'll be like a lot of folks that want to do things or reopen. going back to the conditional uses and sort of the expedited timelines, director hillis, can you tell us, are we changing findings and what people need? >> it's just changing the timeline. it would be moving those categories, the bar, entertainments, nonretail, and smaller retail, into this program. they still have to go through all the c.u. requirements, but this just says you're eligible to do it in a three-month period. the only other thing that impacts the c.u.s is the requirement to take out the requirement for the linear -- proposal to take out the requirementor the linear frontage calculation.
>> commissioner tanner: and there are -- requirement for the linear frontage calculation. >> commissioner tanner: [inaudible]. >> yeah, and there's other tools that we can use to measure the calculations. the linear feet is just very specific, and what we find is it's confusing for applicants. they don't understand what we're asking, and then, they come back to staff, and it's not quite right, and it has to be redone, and that just adds onto the timeline for these applicants. >> commissioner tanner: can you explain some of the calculations that we can use besides linear feet to capture the context? >> i think it's the requirement of a certain use as you're walking down the street. that can almost be done with google map. you can do a google map and go out on the street to verify.
>> commissioner tanner: okay. am i coming through? >> yeah. >> commissioner tanner: okay. sorry. i think you froze on my end, but i don't know. and then, the one thing that i want a little concerned is, like, on my ingress, i lived next door to a bar, which was great when i was going there, but not so great when i was trying to sleep. can you explain, is it someone that can do a rooftop up to second floor. they can already do it if they're ground floor outdoor space. now you're adding if they're on the second floor, and they can add outdoor entertainment. can you help me understand? >> yes. bar uses not allowed. in the neighborhood commercial districts, this would only be possible on a single-story
-- to do that to comply -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but the audio is breaking up. if you kill your video, sometimes that helps. >> sure. is that better? >> clerk: let's try it. >> is that better now? great. so as i was saying, under the proposed revisions -- [inaudible] >> i think we lost him. >> -- without a permit. >> you may need to call in on the phone? >> i apologize. >> clerk: seems like you've got a bad connection. >> okay. >> >> awe while he calls back, i will ask one other set of questions about the trade shop. i love simplifying things, but what is the harm of trade shop being defined and being a use?
and it causes confusion and overlap and trade shop and not getting rid of it in the general retail sales and service and think of it to go to the higher level with other kind of uses and with the better flexibility to have somebody do more things in their space and to make sense with the other uses and a t-shirt shop and with the t-shirts as well. and general sales and service and add the production piece and several hundred dollars to add the trade shop.
and with the trade shops that may be operating in pdr areas would be in trouble or couldn't operate? how do we operate? and maybe they produce t-shirts and want to sell them. >> it is a good question. and trade shop is trade shop and that is the difference between them. >> and we haven't changed any of the controls and in the pdr and other control areas and these are measures to simplify things. >> i don't know if he is back. >> he's almost on. >> if he is on the phone, he has
to press star 3. i don't have a magic ball to know which phone number is which. >> is that you? >> that is me. thank you. i apologize. good evening, commissioners. happy to talk about entertainment and happy to jump in. >> the question was just the scenario and the roof top dining area, what kind of entertainment can i have on the roof top area? >> sure, if you wanted to do one amplified performer until 10:00 p.m., you can do that without a permit and be subject to the noise ordinance and all applicable restrictions from there. more than one amplified performer, you could apply for a limited live performance permit for an outdoor area for performance in conjunction with dining but that would go through the entertainment commission
process and with public noticing and hearing and again still subject to all of applicable noise restrictions enforced upon to go with the noise laws. i am satisfied with the loss being proposed here and sensitive with the outdoor dining and is not wholesale and go through to get the process to have amplified sound and entertainment in that outdoor area. and getting back to governor's june 15 date is true and more thing cans open and california will be reopened to see the
onslaught and from the support of this legislation. >> overall the intent of the legislation and is part of the legislation ties into the policy goal. i wanted to ask some questions for clarification. the first conversion of space into the business zoning and understand the specific call out for the chinatown districts? >> it was to change the language there and they were expressly prohibited before and now we need to reverse. so did you hear from merchants
this was something they really wanted? to help small businesses? >> this suggestion came from the economic recovery task force from from members of the small business commission and others as well. and to have more flexibility where we can and allow dwelling units and to be reasonable to expand to the ad use. thank you for that. and is this for all uses? and for those around bars and entertainment uses and restaurants to use.
and this will only apply to retail uses. and from the cu and all used for uses there. it applies to retail uses on the ground floor. sorry. an abandonment of the ceu would be for retail uses and if this was an office mixed use, it would not be part of the legislation. and i want to clarify that. okay. thank you. so for me the chinatown store fronts issue is a little bit changed for me from my experience and knowledge ground floor retail and chinatown store fronts is extremely limited and no room for storage from what i see from the merchandise spilling onto the sidewalk. and so for me i think i'm not quite seeing the strong
rationale for including this at the moment. and if this package of legislation would move forward, i would like to suggest to the commission we take out the chinatown edu provision until we have time to study it and have the outreach and prioritizing for small business recovery. i think for me there is a difference in whether or not the legislation is trying to create a blanket solution for neighborhoods that are actually really different and for different types of store fronts. so what to do is to have a little outreach and the fine tuning to make sure the legislation is working for the
offices that we have and inclined to continue to move forward. and from that study. commissioner imperial. >> thank you for presenting this extensive legislation again. i would like to remind myself actually since the intent of the legislation is to help small businesses, and i do remember when in the height of the businesses that were displaced because of the rent and the buildings sold to different and new owner and the rents are too
high. now we are where the small businesses and long-serving businesses has already also been hit hard and that is also because of the covid. so i would like to remind myself when we are thinking about this small business recovery act and other recovery legislation that -- how are we uplifting the small businesses and how are we defining small businesses. and there is one thing that i would like to have the questions and regarding the definition and the trade shop which i appreciate and appreciate -- sorry to mispronounce the name but the definition of a trade shop, i am worried about the
legal implication it may have because this is going to be some sort of a change. and it is a change in the planning code in a way. although the intent is there, which i think you actually clarified to us, i'm afraid that the removal of that definition in the planning code may have unintended consequences. and as we are and i am all for flexibility. how are we being flexible especially if the intent is for the small businesses. can you speak about on the implication if or the city attorney to apply a definition,
how will it be seen as an outcome? that is kind of what i am worried about when we are trying to simplify and also if there are restrictions and as small businesses there is a lot of fees put on small businesses. i think there is this kind of one blanket or fit all type of surface when it comes to the small businesses. i don't know who can answer that. but maybe the city attorney can answer that. >> we are removing the unique definition, but the definitions will be there and become part of other existing to move up and
into general services and gym and instructional service will be part of the personal service. they don't go away but are consolidated within other things. what that does is makes it easier for something to change what it is doing without going through change of use. so is there anything else to add? that is an appropriate description there with the categories and the code breaks out more specific definitions to control for land use and the specific uses and the trade shop is a sales and retail use and we have a general catch-all use for those that aren't separately defined.
removing this as proposed from having its own separate definition would kind of collapse it up into the general retail sales and service definition. so where the retail sales and service, that is where this will be permited. >> you will be able to interpret to differences, i guess, because it will be based upon on the zoning administrator and the type of concern i have when it comes to these planning codes and zone changes that we have. and so yeah. okay. and another question that i have is on the protections on the cultural districts. and in here as the planning department, we are going to the
second phase of the racial and social equity. and are in the process still in the definition and even to think about timeline of the racial social equity and the small businesses and can have commented about the equity. i understand this is for the small business recovery act is for three years. it can be amended. however t timeline that we have with the racial and social equity correlates supporting small businesses as well. i have my impressions that may lag behind small businesses that really intended for equity. so i don't know if it's planning department and director can answer on this, but the
correlation of the timeline regarding racial and social equity and the small business recovery act, i am worried about who is going to be prioritizing that. and i think that is a lot of concern when it comes to the cultural districts and also to other neighborhoods and how are we defining the equity when we are still in the process of racial and social equity. >> commissioner, i can take a shot at that. i think we heard a lot that especially in cultural districts there is not a one size fits all. and that is correct. we're committed to working in cultural districts and in those neighborhoods in coming up with whether it's the mission or
japan town, in coming up with specific controls that work well for those districts. i think this doesn't necessarily change this and i think you heard from oewd that already we're thinking about kind of making some changes to this to accommodate some of the needs of those districts in the cultural districts. i think that it's an ongoing process. one is not going to stop and the other is going to start necessarily. so i get the tension between the two, but that is the cultural districts are part of our work plan into the extent we need specific controls to address the concerns in cultural districts and are committed to working on that. >> supervisor: okay. thank you, director hillis. i guess in terms of my comments,
again, i am -- i understand the urgency for this t small business recovery act. however, i feel like there is still -- needs to be more clarification, i feel like, even with the public. in terms of the different cultural districts and even if definition of trade and retail clarification, but i think there is some education that needs to happen still. in order to gather appropriate small business recovery act can be amended in the next three years or even now. and there needs to have a good education and understanding by the communities that are going to be affected by this because there are going to be 51nc krs
that will be covered by this. those are my main concerns, and thank you for presenting. >> commissioner moore. >> commissioner: we are just coming up on the eighth hour of listening and deliberating on consequential and far reaching matters this evening. it is getting harder to do justice because this is a bill that is very complicated piece. and while its intent is good and well placed, i believe there are many, many loose ends of issues i don't think are fully vetted, nor do they have the full support of those communities which are affected by it. overall i would say it reads to me like an oversimplification of an interesting setting. the reason why i am saying that
is that those voices from our diverse neighborhoods which normally are really coming with the most insightful comments are on that unanswered questions. to save that and the corridor and in the end this seems to boil down the length of process and the types of controls that is greatly undermined in an attempt to make it one size fits all. i ask about and will lift this up for you, i have 19 tabs of
questions that i would personally like to have answers to and not go through all of them because it is far too intense and require cross communication with different backgrounds and a lot of important questions from today to roll up our sleeves and come together and pick a good song and describe what is not so strong. and commissioner chan speak for chinatown. i heard speaking for the mission corridor and like to support the speech and the neighborhood commercial guidelines. the rooftop bar, etc., etc., and
i do believe the diversity of our city and the identity and the different ages of our neighborhoods require a little bit more room to find themselves in the legislation and have the ability to preserve that territory which is uniquely theirs buzz they understand it best. i like to support those who ask it and i think it was commissioner tanner and got support by commissioner chan to continue this item and revisit at a slightly earlier part of the day and take everything we have heard and spend it in more time pursuing it. those are my comments.