Influence at the federal and state levels to tie local governments hands and our ability to regulate this industry responsibly and commence rat with the desires of our citizens. Beginning when i was twoyearsold, with the federal Telecommunications Act, im sorry, i just missed that by 32 years. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, it was the first overhaul of Telecom Regulations in a half century and extending to changes to our state Public Utilities code and Public Utilities commission which even went further than the federal f. C. C. Our ability here in San Francisco has been con trained as it relates to regulation of publichealth and safety matters. Over the past several months, my office has undertaken a review to understand the difference between what is required of us relative to federal and state law pre emion and where we may have done more as required for us and where we con trained our authority to regulate in this area. Some have contended weve gone above and beyond what is required by federal and state law. Others contend that the city has reaped certain benefits such as the fact that the city charges rent for cell sites and Telecom Companies are obligated to replace utilities polls in exchange for the ability to install on these facilities. I also want to recognize the Public Policy imperative to ensure that all of our citizens and residents have adequate access to the entertainment. Which has become an indistance able commodity in our Society Daily lives but i believe that 5g, the fifth generation of cells in smartphones is more than just cell phone Internet Access is about an explosion of Network Devices that are and continue to be part of every facet of our lives. In as much as the Health Concerns maybe real relative to use of devices these wireless cell sites enable i have concerns about wireless devices in our homes and our public rights of way from selfdriving cars to Wireless Security and wireless household a compliance. Its not just health. They are also about privacy implications and ive noted, for instance, that ring security cameras were the subject of controversy for being to subject to widespread hacking. Even the federal government has banned a chinese 5g infrastructure because of cybersecurity and privacy concerns. I want to acknowledge staff in a number of departments starting with public works and ms. Debra ludsky and john scarpula, the health department, dr. Thomas aragon who have been revisiting a almost 10yearold study that was undertaken by the Planning Department and marcel boudreau, the city administrator office, mr. Bill barnes and of course the City Attorneys Office bill sanders who unfortunately cannot be here today which will lead me to ask that this item be continued to the call of the chair because i think he is important to this conversation and i want to thank you for meeting with my office and my staff, to further understand and get to the bottom of this regulatory arena. Thank you in particular to public works for agreeing to hold off on adoption of your objective standards while we create this space for this hearing today and any followup that will come from it and thank you to that has indicated within the next quarter, they will present their updates to their 2010 recommend dumb which i just referenced and i also note the board of appeals in july of this year also requested that update from publichealth. While much of this boils down to a very frustrating legal conundrum that is the result of federal and state pre emion i want to turn this over members of the public who wait merchandise time for this hearing and despite my frustration, at having most of our well intentioned ideas rejected based on pre emion, im hoping this hearing might facilitate new creative thinking about how to protect the health and Public Interest including im sorry she couldnt be here shes out of town and thats how peoples schedules work. So colleagues, if you have no comments or objections i would like to open this item for Public Comment for good ideas and public testimony. Please feel free to testify. Good afternoon, thank you so much for having this hearing. A lot of our people are coming at 2 30. We underestimated your speed today. Hopefully you can hear some of the other speakers. Im going to go through some talking points that i hope that you all received supervisors safai and haney. It would be great if you want to take a look at them as im going through them. Multiple small cell installations within the public rightofway will negatively impact property values, pose a threat to the publichealth safety and welfare, create traffic and Pedestrian Safety homicide address, impact tree health and where i where trimmif branches or require removal of roots create visual lights, and potential safety hazards in extreme weather and as San Francisco is what of the destinations in the united states, to live and work and visit we want to make sure the leaders design laws. Everything you have in front of you are fully within the s. E. C. Order and prior regulation. I i want to be very clear on that. Whatever other folks are telling you this is vetted and all the ideas are within the bounds. The very first thing im going to ask you to do is there are different, as we learned, thank you, to bill barnes, actually, this is an easterly year ordinance governing all polls in the city and county of San Francisco and we urge the board of supervisors to write a resolution requiring the Public Utilities commission and the municipal transportation authorities who have another polls to amend their contracts and standards to be consistent with those that were requesting to be made. Thank you. Thank you for your work on this matter. Next speaker, please. Thank you so much. Im going to continue with the talking points. Ironically, on my phone. So option one is do not implement 19019 until marc march 15th. The court of appeal will act between january 1st and march 15th. If the court rules in our favor we dont have to implement this and we should vacate 195019. We respectly request that you wait to consider to implement 19019 until after march 15th. If the court rules the f satisfy guard San Franciscos and the beauty of San Francisco. We need to make sure the ordinance has the possibility of being voided if the court of appeals rules against the fcc. It will be vacated if the federal court rules the local municipalities are not subject to the scc orders of september 2018 or the telecom act of 1996 or middleclass tax relief and Job Opportunities act of 2012. At that time, all personal wireless facilities slash small laws and regulation as prove the date relating to personal wireless facilities and cellular an ten as. If theyre vacated, the Planning Department, the department of environment and the health department, the department of public works shall add to the general plan ensuring the safety and wellbeing of all who live, work and visit San Francisco. They should not be and to maximum towers for safety. They should be no closer than 1. They should be by directional and down the street. The towers are going up all over town and yet the new standards are not in place whom is approving these permits . Will you commit to getting them to stop. Telecom vendors must have Liability Insurance protecting the city. Thank you for some of those very helpful commentses it relates to the litigation in march. Good afternoon. I have a pitch here. Its with graphics here. Do you hear about what i hear do you hear what i hear telecom soaring in the night remember dont give up the fight and make this item turnout right turnout right see the light. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wooding, please ex forward. Good after, supervisors, coalition for San Francisco neighborhoods and why rush to sell off San Francisco. They have significantly over reached their authority and threatening San Francisco sovereignty to keep up with chinas 5g program. More than a dozen u. S. Cities are challenging federal regulators in court over a recent decision that gives Telecom Companies millions in financial and other breaks. As they race to built next Generation Wireless Network powered by 5g mobile data. Officials from los angeles, portland oregon, bell. Interview washington among others, asked the u. S. Court of appeals of the ninth Circuit Court to review and rule change by the federal Communications Decision which restricts citys ability to charge. And this is what i really want to make is that you have a fiduciary responsibility to the city as well as the health. Under the sccs new policy, Telecom Carrier seeking permits to install the Network Equipment on Public Infrastructure must have their request reviewed more quickly by city officials. They are also regard to charge carriers 270 per year and access fees. Before the new policy carriers would expect to say more than 500 annually. Why rush to sell us San Francisco. Thank you, mr. Speaker, please. Thank you, my name is dr. Thomas kouwenber cowen and d and worked in San Francisco for 15 years. I dont know much about politics or ordinances. I dont know a lot about the Health Ramifications of wireless radiation. In 2000, a man named neil cherry analyzed the rate of Childhood Cancer compared to the distance the children lived from sutro towers. The children who live within a mile of the tower have nine times the rates of cu lukemia, 5 times the rate of lymphoma, 31 times the rate of brain cancer, and 18 times the rate of total cancer as children who lived more than a mile from the towers. It will increase the disease rate in the population of San Francisco. This includes heart disease, diabetes, cancer and a host of neurological diseases in children and adults including particularly the rate of. Al in San Francisco. We are at a ross roads in San Francisco. We can either reject this roll out and lay the foundation for a safe wired city or we will risk being one of the most toxic cities in the world. I urge you to take the first step to blocking this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. My name is linda smith and i lived in San Francisco since 1985 and im a former editor of the San Francisco chronicle. I have a different story for you today. Earlier this year, seven neighbors got together to impose the permitted installation of a wireless antenna on a light pole outside their building at pacific avenue and webster street. In their appeal, which i have here, and will leave with the clerk, they documented the dpw and Planning Department made incorrect determinations regard north permit. As a result, the neighbors won their appeal and the installation was blocked. All owe verizon and Telecom Companies are required bylaw to document radio frequency emissions after antennas are installed, the company has never done so. Not once. Although d. P. W. Is required to track and assess such documentation, before issuing permits, it has never done so. Going forward, with the deployment of 5g and more 4g antenna within the city, how can residents have trust these radiation antennas are not creating harm when no safety testing has been done and no one is holding these tole com companies or d. P. W. A count able for their unlawful acts. Such unlawful instillations violate the principle ordinance enacted in the 2003 in San Francisco. Did states where threats of serious or i a irreversible, laf full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for this city to postpone Cost Effective measures to present the degradation of the environment. Next speaker, please. My name is roxanne and im a resident here in San Francisco who has been affected by ordinance 19019. I have a wireless proposed 12 feet in line outside my bedroom window. Its not through the noticed materials but only through filing a protest and a records act request i could learn about the facility and uncover some errors within the application. My application is still being reviewed including at appeals. During this process, ordinance 19019 was adopted and now the city and Wireless Companies are saying theres no public row view or input. Theres no permit necessary anymore for this. And they rely on the master license with sfpuc which is an outdated agreement and that agreement contemplates regulatory process that has been removed through the adoption of ordinance 19019. Its obviously problematic to remove the public process entirely from fighting these facilities that effect the estheticses of the city and are quite controversial in terms of their Health Effects and all one has to do is drive around the city to see the proliferation of them and the conversion of many of them from 4g to 5g. So the status quo relying on an outdated master agreement that is not paired with a permitting process is flawed. I surgery the board of supervisors to rescind ordinance 19019 and replace with another process and allows the public to have a say in how the facilities are cited. I support many of the comments made at beginning of the public process and straight forward commonsense items that could be included to help protect the aesthetics and the wellbeing of San Francisco. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, my name is robert johnson. I would like to use my time to highlight the importance of preserving some form of notification in your legislation. You know, its already tar from a fair fight. The more we allow this to proceed in secrecy, the more trouble we will have. If you read through board avenue peels against cell phone towers every person there alleges that they were given improper notification. I dont think its a winning argument because i dont think the board of appeals has overturned a permit on improper notice. I think its true. Verizon in particular has gone to great length to avoid giving notice to people and notice was required to be given to owners or tenants and you have mr. Albred here today. Verizons position was they could chose to notify owners or tenants but not both. Right. If i have in charge of running a race and i say, person who comes in first or second gets a medal. I dont ex fact you to chose the person and not give the person a medal. Its unreasonable interpretation. Hundreds of permits were issued with this background. So, i just want to highlight we need to have notice. If neighbors dont know what is going on, they cant fight back. When we go to our politicians, they always say, well, you know, you need come up and influence the legislation. We cant do that if we dont know what is going on. I would appreciate if you could keep that in mind. Thank you so much. Thank you, next speaker. Hello board members. Its the biggest thing and you are requested to stop permitting pervasively poison usous pollution from unsafe and untested 4g, 5g Wireless Communications telecommunications facilities. And 5g broadcasting in the city of San Francisco. Thousand dollars of scientific studies reveal irreversible microwave health and safety dangers. To 9 residents of San Francisco. Especially children pregnant women, helderly persons in others. The burden of liability weighs heavy on the city. They should have back by insurance policies by the Wireless Industry in escape clauses in the w. T. F. Contracts that they possess. Joe moscow wits published an article in Scientific American and he advocated an immediate moratorium on the 5g and demanded our government adopt protecting our health and safety. The 2003 precautionary principle ordinance is a rule of of law that requires per have a len peo protect people and the environment. Upon these grounds, it is mandatory to preserve publichealth and safety by enacting moratorium begins activation of San FranciscoWireless Telecommunications facilities. You also have the tmobile versus San Francisco case which gives you the trite do this. Its all on your shoulders and im sure that you have the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Its also on our state and federal officials shoulders that they preempt our ability. Next speaker, please. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Karen Jackson and im a student at San FranciscoState University and im here to commissioner vaughn nottati on of the 5g cell phone towers and theres a lot of stuff we dont know about the effects of this kind of technology and what we know is that so many people are sensitive to the type of radiation and i just improper you to wait until we know more. There are multiple countries across the whole entire planet that have banned 5g in their countries and due to not only people sensitivities to this type of radiation but also the fact that the frequency of this radiation can also be harnessed as a crowdcontrol weapon using frequency of you waves. Many people have spoken and told you what you need to just halt on this and theres nothing more i can say but lets just wait. Thank you. Next speaker, please. If you will lineup. My name is betsy russellmanning and i compiled a book on 5g is coming. Its here in parts of San Francisco. Its coming to our home, our schools, our libraries, our parks and towns and to your children. Its linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, alzheimers, cataracts and immune dysfunction, antibiotic resistance, immune suppression and birth defects. Here are there are over 240 scientists around the world who warn about the dangers of these millimeters waves to all of us. Ill get you a copy of this soon. Thank you. Thank you, maam. Seeing no other members of the public for Public Comment, we will close Public Comment. Ms. Letswski, do you want to come up . Or mr. Spits . There we go. I believe supervisor haney has a question for you. You are also welcome to respond to anything that i said or that you have heard in the public or any other things that you as a subject Matter Expert and regulate or may want to add to this conversation. Thank you supervisor peskin. There was a couple things that came up from the public that i wonder if you can respond to. One, is sort of this question of the timing of implementation and whether theres some possibility of waiting and there are Court Decisions coming down and such and what your response is there. The point go notice and who is given notice. It does seem like it would be important to let tenants know and in addition to owners if you can respond to those two things. Absolutely. So last year, a lot of work was put together to respond to the scc requirement thats we meet the sixday shot clock. Its something all the city departments got together to figure out within the process that we had set in place and with what we need today do in order to allow processing of permits to occur, meet the time lines, go through all the of the different departments for the proper reviews. [please stand by] issues or determination that both the noise and rf emission standards set by the fcc are met. And that the pg e pole would be posted and within 300 feet, poles would be as well. The public can come out and engage in the public process. If theyre interested, through appealing to the board of appeals. So that does remain in the current legislation. For the puc and the mta, they have a whole separate thing they do that doesnt have the same noticing process and appeals process. Public works is no longer overseeing their processes. In the prior legislation, we were issuing permits for all poles, and now theyre currently taking and doing all the review related to their assets. Okay. So i would for one be delighted in you want to continue to agree to hold off on the adoption of the objective standards. I think first and foremost i dont mean to be cranky on deputy City Attorneys debut at the land use committee, but having our deputy City Attorney who is the legal subject Matter Expert, mr. Sanders, here, im not sure why hes not here, would be very helpful. I do not want to put ms. Pearson in the position of having to delve into a body of legal material that is not her subject Matter Expertise. So i would like to continue to hold off. I would like to continue the hearing and also like to get legal advice about the potential outcomes of litigation three months hence. And at about the same time, the updated report will be forth coming from our department of public health, which is truly independent of the fcc and the telecommunications industry. So i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. And, colleagues, if we can do that without objection, i will continue to meet with ms. Dodd and ms. Selby and the Advocacy Community offline, and i failed to mention brian roberts, and deputy City Attorney sanders as we continue to try to figure out what were going to do with the ordinance this board unanimously passed this year. If we can do that without objection im sorry . My apologies. That will not be the order until supervisor safai speaks. Supervisor safai you pretty much said a lot of what i was going to say. I do concur with the chair. I would appreciate holding off on implementation. I want to express some of the things ive heard from people in my district. People dont feel like the appeal process is a real process. They feel they submit their concerns. Many of them have been expressed today and then everything proceeds as planned anyway. It doesnt feel and i understand that were moving forward with a conversation about standardization of esthetic, i think thats an important thing. I think there needs to be time done to look into the science. We certainly want to get that on the record. But i want to express the overall frustration from some of the folks ive heard from that, the appeals process this is not a criticism of dpw, this is the standards by which the appeal is heard and held to. So many times people feel like if they look at some of these devices and how theyre implemented on poles, they one look at one esthetic and there is other ones with a different esthetic. So there is no real standardization. And then proximity and health. For all those reasons, i want to concur with the chair. I think we dont do harm by slowing down the conversation to get all the facts on the table. And in particular, if we were to proceed, then there needs to be a standardization. There needs to be understanding of why some of these are implemented and why the scale is different in size and the esthetic is different depending on where theyre implemented. Supervisor peskin could you read item number 2 . Item 2 is ordinance amending the planning code during the project approval, by authorizing the Planning Department to authorize certain interim activities at project sites as temporary uses up to 36 months and adopting appropriate find its. Supervisor peskin mr. Star, the floor is yours audrey, Planning Department staff. Before i talk about the Planning Department recommendations, ive been asked to share a map to show where the legislation would be applied. If i could get the overhead . So any of the colored areas on the map is where this legislation would apply and im happy to answer any questions about that after i present the commissions recommendation. With that, the Planning Commission heard this item on april 25, 2019. They reviewed a version which i believe has been amended to be more restrictive on the types of uses allowed under the new temporary use authorization. The version the commission reviewed would allow entertainment, arts and recreation uses. Any social service or philanthropic use within a pdr1d district. Regardless of use size and permitted in the underlying zoning district. It would also permit any office use so long as the office space is less than 5,000 square feet and equal or greater Square Footage of space is dedicated for arts, activity uses or Light Manufacturing uses. I believe the length of the authorize has been amended, however, the Planning Commission recommended 36 months with the ability for that tua to be extended up to three separate times for a period of 12 months each. That would be a total of six years. At the april 25th hearing, one person spoke in favor of the ordinance and one urged the commission to find ways to prioritize low equity tenants. They voted to approve the more expansive version of the ordinance i summarized. The first was to amend the requirement to increase residential density. Instead only if there is existing residential on the site. They recommended this because it may only exclude many sites from being eligible for this t. U. A. Even if the city supports the proposed project, the space would be of benefit to the city. The project must have a project submitted to the city and if the city determined the project is desirable enough, requiring the project to provide at least one unit of housing on site to be eligible for the tua doesnt make sense. The commissions second recommendation was to clarify that retail under the section that describes the types of uses are allowed, should be restated to say retail sales and service. The eligible uses allowed under this site believe that the retail reference was actually supposed to be in reference to retail sales and service. However, there are retail categories of uses in the planning code that would not be desirable to be an active commercial space such as automobile manufacturing, things like that. Im happy to answer any additional questions and that ends the commissions recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Audrey, can you put that map back up . So, i dont think the map is right. Okay. Let me grab my staff report and i can say out loud the districts. Supervisor peskin heres what is missing, which is, it says, and neighborhood commercial districts. And im just looking at that map of the city and there are neighborhood commercial districts all over, 24 of them, and not a single one is on the map. Its neighborhood commercial districts bound within a certain area of streets. So its neighborhood commercial or neighborhood districts and mixed use districts in the area bounded by market, 13th, division and king. So soma. Otherwise, n. C. T. Districts citywide would be included but not n. C. D. , neighborhood commercial versus transit. I am not a lawyer. But english is my only language. Tom, definitions. So thank you. Section 205. 5, subsection b, eligible area ends in and neighborhood commercial districts. So its really so is that modifying bounded by market 13th, division and king in mixed use and commercial districts, because that is not clear to this lawmaker. If thats the way planning interprets it, and thats the way you interpret it, or if you think there is clarifying language they should do, so state it now, councillor. Thank you, supervisor peskin. If there is a lack of clarity, we can make it clear that the n. C. D. District all are intended to be covered supervisor peskin shes saying they believe that the legislation that they are recommending to us does not intend n. C. D. S, except within the area bounded by market, 13th, do division and king. Which is what she just said. Thats correct. Supervisor peskin i wanted to do what she intends. Let me state it differently. I cant do what you said, because that would require rereferral to Planning Commission. She believes that the Planning Commission is recommending to us was a narrower thing. And i believe that ms. Pearson would advise this body that if you wanted to expand that, you would have to rerefer to planning. So i just want the language to be clear, so we dont get in any weird fights or have to refer to the Zoning Administrator and have the City Attorney tell the Zoning Administrator thats outside of the Zoning Administrator powers because legislatively mr. Teague doesnt have that. We can massage that language and make it clear. Thank you. When i just read it, i was like and because it ends with and n. C. D. S. Before i call on supervisor haney, Planning Department mentioned some amendments which is within which are on page 6 and are before you which is with regard to the definition of interim activity. And the way i am suggesting at the behest of a number of individuals who have contacted by office over time, we define those as principally permitted uses. And remove the then extraneous language with regard to the types of uses, because each area sets forth what is principally permitted. So i would like to make those amendments on page 6. And as well on page 6 to add to the definition of eligible Development Site, the words deemed complete. In other words, that its not just you submit an application and a fee, but the Planning Department has to deem that application to be complete and then finally, with regard to the number of extensions and this is in the provision on page number ill come back to you i just want to get these on the table. On page 8, relative to the extension period to limit those not to three for a total of six, for a total of five years. So those would be the recommendations id like to make to my colleagues. Supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you for those, chair peskin and your work on this. You know, i am the coauthor of this with mayor breed and we have a number of sites in my district which have been both activated for these types of uses and could be activated for these types of uses especially as we see Housing Development and it is credible that these sites are activated for positive use, for art, for events, for Small Businesses, for different types of Light Manufacturing. That can take place in a temporary way. I think weve seen in this case weve seen the importance of interim use as it comes to Navigation Centers and Homelessness Services and this is another important way to activate sites before they are built. One of those sites i know is 10 van ness, which is the old honda dealership and operates as a popup event venue and has been incredibly successful at that. So my view on this is that it is smart to more narrowly tailor this to areas where there is a principle many use and i appreciate the piece around shortening the time a bit so this doesnt become be a more permanent use but is clearly an interim use, but just as a general point, its exciting to me that we are making it easier for the activation of sites particularly ones that can become blight or problematic in various ways. Thank you, chair peskin for the amendments. Supervisor peskin thank you for your cosponsor ship. Supervisor safa supervisor safai i want to be clear the version is your amendments . Supervisor peskin yes. And those amendments are only on page 6. Supervisor safai you added the word, and accepted, on line 4 . Supervisor peskin on line 4, and accepted, and that appears two more times in the same definition of eligible Development Site at lines 6, 7 and 11. Supervisor safai got it. Supervisor peskin and then what supervisor haney talked about as to the definition of interim activity and page 8 as to the five versus six total years. Supervisor safai right. Where was the interim activity . Supervisor peskin middle of page 6. Supervisor safai you said use permitted in the Zoning Districts . You added that language . Supervisor peskin we said everything that is principally permitted is good to go and with that were able to strike the various definitions of different use types. Supervisor safai got it. Supervisor peskin any members of the public on item number 2, please come forward. Hello, supervisors. I am the president of nonplus ultra. Thank you for your time today. Thank you for hearing this. And supervisor haney, thank you for cosponsoring this with mayor breed. Im here in full support of this legislation. Nonplus ultraoperates the building that supervisor haney mentioned at 10 van ness street. It is a very cool, old building in San Francisco that is entitled or in the process of being entitled for development. Rather than it sitting empty, we were able to coordinate some fun events to subsidize the community. This legislation goes beyond just this property, but it goes into whole gamut of Different Things throughout the city and county of San Francisco. The process to get a building entitled is a long and somewhat arduous one in the city. And without activation such as parking garages, this legislation will allow for my company, other nonprofits, some of the folks that are displaced from San Francisco, to get into these Development Projects and really be able to call that place home for that 35 year period if this legislation were to pass. Its a Significant Community benefit because these spaces would otherwise be empty and have no real access to public. Again, im in full support. Thank you for your time. I hope that we can get this passed. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is el chan. Im cofounder and 20 year veteran of the Events Industry here in San Francisco. Im a partner of trademark Event Productions and we produce Corporate Events throughout the city and across the country. There is a great shortage of event space in our city and many clients across the country are taking their events to las vegas, los angeles and other major markets. The interim use spaces here enable us to bring our clients business dollars to San Francisco. We have been hosting events over the past decade and saw rejuvenation of neighborhoods in the city. The activity that we engage in brings much needed commerce and vitality to the sites and neighborhoods, including not only millions of dollars of direct event and Service Industry employment, but also spending dollars in the neighborhoods. In support of the events, we witness the slow but steady turnaround on the streets. We have seen this ourselves in the mission, dog patch and Market Street areas where the neighborhoods have become more desirable residentially and commercially after a few years with the events and commerce in the area. This fall, interim use space donated to enable them to host the annual gala raising over 7 million across the globe. The work for this and several events hosted included thousands of labor hours for artists, stage crew and workers throughout the year. As a Small Business owner, we rely on the reliability of space so we can contribute to the vitality of our city and ever evolving neighborhoods. Thank you. Supervisor peskin thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Im a native to the bows triangle and resident of the Mission District and i worked in events and night life for 17 years in the city. I have come to offer my support for this legislation with the developmental pressures on the city, there are a lot of buildings in the pipeline and i think its great to be able to use these spaces in the interim, rather than to leave them inactivated, as it tends to attract blight and yep, so, offering my support. Thanks. Hi, im jimmie jenk kins. Im in support of the legislation as a parttime bartender in the city. I moved here in 32 years. I was involved in the nightclub industry for the past 30 years. Being involved with one foot in the white collared world and one foot in the blue collared world has allowed me to stay in the city. Its allowed me to raise my daughter in the city and provide a good standard of living for all of us and our family. And id like to see that continue. Not only for me. I used to think i was unique, but there is hundreds of thousands of us in the city that need the additional employment that these places provide. Not just for bartenders, but youre talking about security, sound, event planners, everybody that is involved in this industry is affected by this legislation. Im in strong support of it for those very reasons. Youre talking about thousands of jobs, livability and for people to remain and contribute in the city. People dont move here for cornfields, they move here for the vibrancy, to meet likeminded people, other creatives. Thats what the type of events we throw provide. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Good afternoon, supervisors, my name is dave peterson, im a partner with nonplus ultra. And im here to support the legislation. As the need for community and nonprofit corporate space becomes increasingly scarce in our growing city, it has been my experience how activating these underutilized properties benefits both the community and the neighborhood. As some of the speakers said before me, not only revenue is generated, more revenue is generated from the businesses surrounding these properties, its also, i think, for optics. I come from a social work background and im actively managing the property at 10 south van ness. Its been my duty to work with some of these people that are camped outside of our building on a daily basis, on dark days, when these folks are out there. We allow them to congregate, do what they need to do and feel like they have a sense of security or safety. Theyre not bothered. Were not aggressive. With this, weve instated a meal program. After each event, our caterers will come down and feed the folks after the event is over. Im here to support. Supervisor peskin thank you, next speaker, please. If there are any other members of the public, line up to your right, my left. Hello, i work for the paratransit that is directly to fund. Since they moved in sorry. Since they came in, they been very respectful with our clients, with our disabled clients. They wash their area every time and that helps a lot with the disabled clients. Also, with the parking, theyre very aware that they cant park in front of the paratransit office, which is very helpful. They do we do like them around because in part we feel safe that there is workers in and out, because that area is pretty, you know, pretty bad. And that makes us a little bit safe. My workers and i feel safe theyre there. So, yes, i prove for them. Supervisor peskin thank you. Seeing no other members of the public for Public Comment. Close comment on public 2. Supervisor safai yes, okay. Just since i was given this part about the interim activity, just for my own experience, in our district, there was certain things not principally permitted, particularly related to arts, activities and entertainment. I want to ask the Planning Department, if we strike all this language and just say what is principally permitted, would that constrain anything that has been stricken out of this . Because im concerned about the arts activities and some of the people here talking about other forms of entertainment. I just want to know if we just say principally permitted, is anything taken off the table . Generally yes. Some of the uses were called out because they were not principally permitted in the Zoning Districts where this would apply. Sometimes they are. For instance, i believe general entertainment is allowed in the c3 district even though we called that out here. However, we called it out in the original legislation as a permitted use. There are other things, though, we specifically included or recommended approval of things like Light Manufacturing and metal working uses in addition to arts activity, because those tend to be more of a workerartist space and those are not permitted in many districts across the city, including some in this legislation. Supervisor safai okay. So i mean supervisor peskin it might be helpful to look at the map. And if you want to put the map supervisor safai i was going to ask. C3. Off the top of my head. It looks like its in supervisor haneys supervisor peskin you have bunch of c3. C3o c3p0 . [laughter] which goes all the Downtown Core in the south of market all the way up to chinatown. Some in your district, some in matts . Its in the red on the map. There is the pinkish fuchsia red. All of that is different types of c districts. [please stand by] theres a 15day right of appeal to the board of appeals. In reality, Public Notice is quite limited so when i hear from folks on the mission corridors that they dont want the director, plan the director after february to do this and theyre still discretional, i felt like we should listen to that