>> this is a r the regular meeting of the small business commission held on april 10, 2017. the meeting is being called to order at 5:31 p.m.. the small business commission thanks -- [inaudible] can be viewed on sfgtv channel 78 or live streamed on sfgtv -- [inaudible] members of the public please take this opportunity to turn off electronic devices and public comment is limited to three minutes -- [inaudible] speaker card (music on) sfgtv could you shut off the music? >> [inaudible] office of small business slide. if you have any small business needs check this out. at office of small business and we can help you out. it's all free and please check us out. >> item number 1. gwen stefani. >> here. >> mark dwight is absent. commissioner. >> here. >> (music on). >> commissioner miriam zouzounis. >> here. >> -- commissioner adams, mr. vice president you have a quorum. >> all right. thank you. item number 2. >> item number 2 general public comment. >> okay. do we have any members of the public that would like to come up and make public comment on anything that's not on the today's agenda? (music on). seeing none. public comment is now closed. next item please. >> item 3 approval of legacy business registry applications and resolutions. the applicants today are red and white fleet and ruby sailing. presenter is the program manager and all are considered together the commission or staff or public request otherwise and should be considered as a separate item here or at a future hearing. >> good evening. commissioners. i am the legacy business program manager. i have a powerpoint presentation today. before you today are two applications for consideration for the businesses to be included on the legacy business registry. the applications were reviewed by me for completion and submitted to the planning department staff on february 15 for their review. the historic preservation commission heard the applications on march 15 and made positive recommendations to the commission. for each applicant your commission packet contains a staff report, draft resolution, the application, a case report from the planning department staff and a resolution from the historic preservation commission. there are copies on the table for the public. (paused)to the 1915 pan nana exhibit and during the exhibit on treasure island it offered sightseeing tours of the newly constructed bay bridges. launching the company's signature golden gate day cruise that is still popular today. red and white fleet tours were in full swing by the 40's and operated by his grandson who purchased the business from the crowley maritime corporation in 1997. item 3 b is ruby sailing. the business began in 1981 offers private and public sailing cruise for san francisco bay of residents and visitors and the namesake ruby was designed by josh pryor the sail boat's captain and got coast guard certificate of inspection and offer trips of up to 30 people. ruby sailing launches school cruises and trips and whale watching and tours of the views of the bay bridge and fisherman's wharf and alcatraz and winner of [inaudible] race and earning a positive reputation for impeck believe quality construction and sailting and ruby sailing has been a important contractor to the boast commerce in the city. both businesses received a positive recommendation from the historic preservation commission. after reviewing these applications and the recommendations from the historic preservation commission staff finds that the businesses have met the criteria to qualify for listing on the legacy business registry. there are two draft resolutions for consideration by the small business commission, one for each of theistry legacy business registry applicants and a motion should be in favor of the resolutions. in the resolutions please pay close attention to the core physical features or traditions that define the business. once approved by the small business commission the businesses must maintain the physical features or traditions in order to remain on the legacy business registry. for red and white fleet it's very service and ferry sight touring tours of san francisco bay and for ruby sailing it's sailing cruises of san francisco bay. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> any questions or do you want to go straight to public comment? let's open it up right now for public comment. do we have anybody for public comment on these? anybody for public comment? >> do we have any of the owners here that want to comment? >> would anybody like to speak on public comment for item number 3? >> i have no cards. >> okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. commissioners do we have a motion? >> i move to approve -- >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> approve the resolutions. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> adding these businesses to the legacy business registry. >> and red and white fleet i will say that's very much part of san francisco's legacy and it's our heritage. i mean what would the bay be like without red and white fleet? >> so we have a motion on the floor to approve the resolution. >> do we have a second? >> i second. >> okay. motion by commissioner ortiz-cartagena and second by commissioner riley. commissioner adams. >> yes. >> commissioner dooley. yes. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> yes. >> commissioner riley. >> yes. >> zouzounis. >> yes. >> that motion is approved unanimously 6-0 with one absent. >> great congratulations. [applause] next item please. >> item number 4. board of supervisors file no. 170240 police building code lactation in the work place. ordinance amending the police code to choir employers to provide employees breaks and ac laigz and policy in the work place specifies a process which the employ i makes a request for accommodation and defines minimum standards for lactation accommodations or spaces and requires newly constructed renovated buildings designed for certain uses and have lactation rooms and outline practices and meangd the building code to specify the codes for lactation rooms for new or renovated programs for designated use and making findings and including environmental findings including the california health and safety code and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to order this ordinance to the california building standards commission upon final pakz. discussion and public action item. presenter is ashley summers legislative aide at office of supervisor katy tang. >> thank you. good evening commissioners. again i am ashley summers and a legislative aide to supervisor kate keatd and i am here to show the proposed lactation in the policy that would amend the codes. first i would like to provide an overview of what the legislation does. it will require employers to develop and have a lactation policy and include a statement about employee's right to request accommodation and the policy which they make the request and the policy must be in a handbook or set of policies made able to employ --s and must be distributed to new employees upon hiring and when employee makes an inquiry of parental leave and must respond to the accommodation within five basis. if the employers cannot provide a location that complies with the policy they must provide a written response to the employee and the employers must have a written of request for three years from the date of request and has requirements around break time and space. lactation break time requirements are consistent with federal and state requirements which i will share later. lactation space cannot be a bathroom and must be comsimmity to work area and free from view and intrusion and a wall is preferred employers don't not have to build a room or required. must be free of toxic and hazardous materials and breast pump and requirements and police to sit and deas to electricity and provide water but not in the lactation space itself. when there's multi-purpose rooms used for lactation needs that need takes precedent over iewrses and tenants can provide a shared space among employers. exemptions are allowed and a employer can demonstrate hardship which shifts in federal law. we are requiring rooms and construction in new remodeled buildings and lactation space of at least 10,000 square feet and remodels of at least 10,000 square feet if the project is more than $500,000 and required upon square footage and occupant loads in employee designated areas and not all areas and reed moels are exempted if they're fulfilling the requirements for the lactation within existing space and remodels are exempted from building a sink if the plans do not include plumping. rooms require a perform sign outside the door and indicate the use as a lactation room. new construction need to be 50 square feet and one electrical outlet and sink with running water and 500 feet of walking distance from the farthest employee work space and requires the department to develop best practices and resources and model lactation policy and request form and my colleague grace will share that information with you. our office has been working with a variety of stakeholders including the business community including the golden gate restaurant association, the chamber of commerce, the committee on jobs, sf council on district merchant associations and office of small business and the reason that we're bringing this legislation fort is because of the numerous health benefits breast milk provides and protecting the mother and child from diseases and the american academy of pediatrics recommends feeding them for six months and one year and beyond but the san francisco department of public health report that's majority of women in san francisco do not exclusively breast field despite it's available. there are disparities in san francisco among socio-economic groups and low income mothers and use service experience low breastfeeding rates and between birth and one month most portum and 20% are exclusively breast fielding and 16% participating in wic are participating at six months of age and the hospitals searching low income have the lowest rates. mothers that return to work are typically returning before the babies are eating solid food and leaving a hard choice and provide the best milk still or at all and there are barriers including social support practices and the need to return to work and adequate accommodations. asking an employer to provide lactating accommodation can be a difficult decision to have and there are no mechanisms to facilitate that discussion. women who have both adequate break time and a private space are 2.3 times to be exclusively breast feet feeding at six months and less with each month without accommodations and federal and state law prior accommodations to employees. while the federal law applies to companies with 50 or more employees and to non exempt employees the california law relies to all companies so employee are covered. federal law ask that mothers are given reason break time up to a year after the birth and a place other than a bathroom and shielded from view and the public to express milk and may use break times and not taken concurrently with paid breaks. so california law is very similar but it does not have an upper age limit so the federal law allows women to pump for up to one year of the child's age and california law does not have an upper age limit so i am wondering what you think is reasonable break time? every mother is different therefore the time they need to pump is different but generally speaking a break is 15-20 minutes, two times during the eight hour shift. these breaks -- this is not part of the legislation. it's existing law. they can be break at times of normal breaks but breaks in excess are not required to be paid. business that provide the space will see a return on the investment. breastfeeding lowers costs and cancer and diabetes and heart disease and women recover faster and infanlts require fewer visits and they're absent less and one day absences occur more with those that not breast fed. women that get more support when returning to work with a program or accommodations likely to return to work earlier and i wanted to share a couple of examples of businesses that have benefited from breastfeeding programs. they're larger businesses. cigna reported $240,000 savings in expenses for breastfeeding mothers and children and 77% less reduction in loss time due to illness and $60,000 savings and 72 and a half at six months compared to the national average at 21%. in home below in georgia implemented a program and two lactation rooms and multiple users in private areas and reduction in employee absenteeism of three days per employee compared to the national average of nine days in the first year of the child's life. these of course are larger companies with more resources than the small businesses which we understand so i am sure you're wondering how some of the challenges businesses with the city will comply and the questions over the course of developing the legislation so these are examples what business owners can transition into a lactation space. unloseed office or other room, closet or small storage area, sectioning off a corner of a room with permanent walls or partitions or adapting a small unused or under utilized space as manager's room or meeting room or other space. aside from the minimum requirements and the clean service and chair and electricity amenities can be simple or more elaborate based on the needs. we want to provide resources for the businesses as they comply with the law. we'll disseminate the information through the stakeholders that provided the input through the process and our office is working with dph and hosting information on the website which grace can provide more information about and we've been working with the office of labor standards and enforcement to ensure their office is able to enforced requirements of the ordinance and if you like i did bring some pictures of some examples if you wanted to see them but i will leave that up to you. that will end my presentation. >> okay. questions? commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> i would like to kind of clarify a few things. >> sure. >> the federal law sets a threshold which is 15 employees. the state law does not and the city and county does not. what is the definition of employee in the city? how do you define an employee under the law -- under the new ordinance? full time? part time? ten hours? 15 hours? >> well, i have the draft right here. i also have the city attorney here who has drafted this ordinance so it says "employees shall mean any person employed with the geographical boundaries of the city including part time employees". >> part time means 20 hours? >> well the state law does cover every employee. it doesn't include anyone so we're not more restrictive but if you want -- >> what i am trying to figure out also and that would be nice because for a city employers to comply we would like to clarify the difference between state and city, correct? >> uh-huh. >> what are the difference in the definition? is that the same? >> i can find that out for you and provide that later. okay. >> as far as the exemption is concerned since there is an exemption in the state and the city to what extent the exemption is stricter or larger, wider, more between the two? i see that the penalties are higher for not complying. i am jumping from one topic to another and i am writing. i am assuming you're going to answer the question. >> first i wrote down you wanted to know the definition of employee between what the state and city considers an employee? >> yes. >> and i will find that out for you and the exemption is it different between the two? so the exemption is reflective of the federal exemption which is actually a little more specific than the state exemption so it covers financial burden, size burden, operational burden, so i think it's pretty inclusive of the things that we heard from small businesses that might prevent them from complying so our office of labor standards and enforcement would wren force that and be able to gauge based on the legislation. >> to the extent the requirements under the ordinance are stricter of course, and to the extent ordinance would apply to all employers like in the state. there are more restrictive and conditions. how are we reaching the -- since you said that we had an outreach program. how are we reaching all businesses? since we don't track the very small ones, and how are we -- you know, kind of spreading the word as they say? >> that's a really good question, so initially we're working with the stakeholders that have been involved drafting the legislation but once it passes one of the hing things that folks asked us to do is make sure that the folks that interact with small employers are aware of the well and resources to help small businesses comply and we heard questions that are easily answered or business owners that just don't understand and that is totally understandable because even i as a mother didn't understand it before i had my daughter, so make sure that all of the employees that interact with small businesses in the county are trained about what is required and where the resources are so on the department of public health website primarily and then once it passes would look to some of the merchant it is associations to go and attend the meetings and disseminate information about the law. >> >> and any other suggestions that you have about non-profits or other groups to share information we're happy to do that because i think we don't want to pass something and it sit on the shelf and make sure people are aware it passed and how to comply. >> the concern is the state law passed in 2002 and passing a more -- not restrictive but has more conditions and we ought to share that with the potential employers and the city and county of san francisco. >> yes. >> to all employers small or tiny businesses and these small businesses don't have the resources to be -- to check websites, don't have the time, so we noticed on this commission the best way of informing is reach out to them and i am concerned how are we going to do that to make sure they don't violate the law as it is different than the state law. >> i just want to be respectful of my colleague's grace from dph and she has to leave by 6:00 o'clock and if you want commentary on what they're doing before i answer the rest of your questions. is that okay? >> sure. >> we understand that they're a lot of difficulty faced by micro businesses and small businesses. however, we really want to provide resources to help small businesses and micro businesses in order to provide lactation accommodations for our low income women, so on the website we're going to have links to the federal women's health -- they have a lot of -- they have over 100 type of businesses including a lot of small businesses to provide. they have samples and models to provide lactation accommodations down to using a closet that is free from toxic materials and the emphasis is not a bathroom. okay. empty chamber to a bathroom is allowed and we also -- they're very creative. some of the resources from the state they provide lactation accommodation for farm field workers. it's so simple. they just have a tent that they weigh down and they use a pump that runs on battery, and one of the other creative model is they use a bus at the strawberry field and they put the -- what do you call that? the shield to cover the windows and again they use a battery for pumps, and another creative thing they did is they used the portable bathroom to convert into lactation room, so there's different things to do. we can -- i remember when my coworkers need to pump breast milk at a meeting. what my boss did she put a screen to cover her, so it can be as simple as that to provide space. the break time is another issue because a lot of businesses they don't have one employees so the employee take a break and no one is there to cover, and that's another area that we need to look at. for providing a break time doesn't have to be a paid time, doesn't have to be a paid break. we always encourage moms to be communicate with their employers, so we created a form to request and we create a sample policy which will be -- okay. yeah. and we are still in the process of making a simple but inclusive policy and also the request form. okay. any questions? >> can i continue my questions? >> yes or commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> why don't you continue first? >> okay. what is the logic of not paying women during that break? is there a reason since we are -- it's a policy. what is it on state and is state different -- >> the state actually requests the employers to provide break time but if she's spends more time than her paid break time she can negotiate with her immediate supervisor and at the discretion of the supervisor whether or not she's allowed to use unpaid break time or she use vacation time. >> she can use -- she should not be using the ten minutes in the morning or ten minutes in the afternoon or every four hours she would have otherwise as a break time for lactation. she can? >> yes, she can. >> so that would be paid, correct? >> right. >> is it timed accordingly, so -- if it is timed for that ten minutes break. >> right. if she can finish pumping and storing the breast milk walking to the station -- if she can do it within ten minutes, 15 minutes of the paid break time then it would be. >> before you leave i wanted to ask another question. >> i'm not leaving yet. >> you're not allowed to count the time for the person to get there or come back so it's good if it's close, and the break time must be paid if it runs concurrently with the normal break time so for example a mom might use the ten in the morning and afternoon and add another ten and negotiate with the employer whether that's flex time, paid time, unpaid time and then the lunch break and i know for example -- this isn't really applying to this but teachers for example might pump when they get to work in the morning and before they leave school and once at lunch but they're not leaving the classroom to do it necessarily so it can work a lot of ways. >> just the lunch break and come back -- [inaudible] and the lunch break is required at least half an hour for lunch break. now, how do you tie this with the lunch break? can you classify that issue? >> they can go ahead and bump on the lunch break. >> it's not like you get an extra break. >> >> and you can eat the lunch too if you want. >> as long as you're not working. it's pa of your break and you can do anything you want including pumping. >> correct. and shopping on amazon which a lot of moms do. >> i'm sorry. >> no, please. >> a lot of moms express the gratitude to the employers and it really create good will and they would feel loyal to the employers. >> good. i have one more question and i don't want to -- you have talked about resources and for the benefit of those who are listening would you please -- so in other words if you want to accommodate one of your workers you have those resources, you have questions. do you call a number or you can access a website you were about to clarify that issue wanted you make it very clear so they know whom to call and where to call? >> yes we will. we shall. >> you don't have that answer right now? because it didn't pass yet. >> okay. right. >> [inaudible] >> right. we're still in the process, work in progress. yeah. >> okay. >> we hope to have that website very soon. it will be a part of dph's website and also on the healthy mother's coalition website and anywhere else that has a link to it. >> it's the legal aid at work website. >> thank you. >> great. commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> hi. my question is obviously from a small business perspective the penalty like if there is a complain filed. what does that look like? what read steps? if it's valid or not valid but can you take me through that process? process? >> yeah, it maybe vague in the ordinance and the office of labor standards and enforcement will do a rule making ordinance like the family friendly work place ordinance. we met with office of economic and workforce development and the purpose of the legislation is to ensure women are. >> >> given minimum standard of accommodation and the other main sticking point if you don't address this quickly you may address a mother's ability to continue pumping and if one, two, three, four days pass and [inaudible] may drop so the main thing there o lsc is responsive to these concerns and they can't wait so they're aware of that but they're doing a rule making process how they're going to enforce the law and i am sure they are happy to talk to office of small business how that might be best accommodated. it's not meant to be punitive. hopefully once that this is made aware they can correct it because i think many people can comply but it's the lack of awareness. i talked with someone with a restaurant and had never experienced this before but eventually they were like oh wait could they use my office? oh that would be perfect and just a lack of awareness of what is required. it's not a special room you have to build. it could be your office so i think if cases come up hopefully they can be remedied without being punitive. >> one more question just my cower yos identity. and for [inaudible] there are exemptions and what about the big companies like ups and uber and transport and taxis and bus drivers how do you envision and how is that carried out? >> that's a very good question. i will tell you that a mom that provide breast milk can and are there points in the day you're coming back to the office and schedule it around that and make it work that way or if the person wants use a battery -- either battery operated or something that plugs into the car that's something they can do as well -- >> not to cut you off but that is the owniose of commissioner uber -- >> i'm not sure how that would work but i can look into that for you but when we pass the city ordinance for our employees we thought about muni drivers as aally important one so one of the things we're looking into we have the funding to purchase lactation pods and there is one out and in city hall and mccallister on the ground flow you flow and you can see it and you can see it and maybe in the mta yard and drop off the bus and there are creative ways to get around it and yes, there is an exemption if the business feels like it's a financial burden or can't make it work then they should apply for the exemption or respond to the employer appropriately. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner riley. >> yes. i use the word [inaudible] and as soon as the law passed there is no problem. we set up office and blind and curtains and we in house legal department and human resources so handbook not an issue but for a small business that's going to be a big burden, yeah, so my question is is this requirement only per request? if you have no mothers in your employ then you don't -- >> correct. >> only when they need it you provide it. >> correct. and could be temporary for the time the morality needs it. it could be a special space that you set up or temporary during the day and switch back and i would say it's best to leave the items that the mother needs there so she's not constantly setting up and breaking down the space but a chair and table and outlet and screened off by a curtain or a screen and other times of the day people have phone calls or meetings or whatever needs to happen in the room. >> so doesn't have to be permanent, just during the time to meet the needs of the mother sms. >> in the new legislation it's permanent and flexible and permanent for the businesses that are existing it doesn't have to be permanent, only when requested. >> for the new construction it has to be permanent, but when not in use you can use it for something else? >> correct. >> okay. >> commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you for your presentation of the i also have a couple of questions in regards to the inspection and compliance, so the agency that is referenced as being authorized to take appropriate steps for enforcement is that dph? >> office of labor standards and enforcement. >> okay. so there is a lot of open ended language especially in section -- the implementation enforcement section when it says "violation has occurred -- so that the rule making process in order -- may order any appropriate temporary or interim relief for the violation or status quo upon completion of full investigation or hearing, so i am looking at the administrative enforcement -- >> can you tell me what page and line? >> it's page nine. >> thank you. >> so my question what exactly does in term relief or appropriate or temporary relief -- is that referring to compensation for the employee? >> good afternoon commissioners. i am from the city attorney's office. this language, the administrative and force section is consistent with other ordinances that are enforced like the health care security ordinance, minimum wage ordinance. these are generally prey standard provisions and i guess what your question -- that language would mean if someone made a complaint and there was -- it was a particularly egregious violation then o lsc has the power to order interim relief while they investigate the violation and you need to accommodate this woman in this room while we investigate. it may be out of place in this ordinance but they're standard provisions. it seemed like that would not probably occur frequently in the enforcement of this ordinance. >> okay thank you. and in regards to the -- including the policy is there a requirement to post it somewhere or will be there inspections for postings or something some. >> no. we've all stood in front of those. it's very long. i think the main point when you hire someone it's presented to them whether printed or a larger company and a handbook or a website with policies you put it there but no we don't require it posted somewhere on the wall. >> okay. so there aren't surprise visits by dph or building inspection? >> they would be a surprise why would i tell you now? no. there not. >> thank you. >> commissioner dooley. >> i have a questiono review for the many small businesses that only have one employee, so going into this as it rolls forward what is that solution? do you have a solution for that situation? >> that is a really good question and one key keep getting. it's going to vary from business to business. >> >> depending what the employee is doing. i worked retail before so i understand floor coverage in that conversation so if it's just one person and it's the business' livelihood and step away for 20 minutes three times a day that may represent a hardship that the business could qualify for. i think it's a little gray. i it's going to happen so infactorly too and if it does happen it can be addressed but i can't say. if it works for a business to close down for lunch hour and maybe the woman -- say she pumps before she opens the shop because it takes us a while to get to work unless you work near your house so you pump when you get there and open up and before you're getting paid and then maybe there's a break in the middle of the day when you can do it and pump once more after you close the shop or relieved by the next person. that might be work for people too. >> thank you. >> i -- you talked about three times. actually under state and low law there is no eliminate on frequency so the employer should know that he or she cannot set limits as to the frequency of lactation. correct? >> well, -- >> accommodation -- the law says any -- every time there is a need to demand -- >> it's reasonable time, so -- >> where does it say "reason reasonable time". >> it's in the state law and it's different for every women and when you return to work and pump and get into a rightsd i'm and 20 minutes a day for three times and maybe at the end it's only once a day. >> and yeah i want ton the message to businesses and what is the message to frequency and you cannot do it more than two fiems, three times and might be a violation and do you agree with that? >> it has to with the break time allotted existing and anything above that has to be agreed upon by the employer and whether i have to do it four times and i want that time to be an unpaid break and the employer has to agree and if it's a burden on the business then of course they don't have to agree with it. >> and the attorney from the city attorney's office is shaking no and why don't you clarify. >> i would say in response to the language it's reasonable and not break time and the process that would play out the employee and employer would engage in a negotiation to determine the break time they can provide and if the employee demands too much and the employee makes a complaint they will make an evaluation what is reasonable -- >> what is reasonable in your opinion as the city attorney? as an employer asking them to be the judge of a reasonableness of pumping tell me how do you small businesses going to ascertain what is reasonable or not? the question is there is no limit as to how many frequency, yes or no? i mean are we going to ask employers to make judgments on the reasonable when to pump. i mean come on that doesn't seem logical to me. >> i believe they would evaluate the situation of each and if the request is reasonable and the amount of time the employer could provide but there is no limit. there is no nee miracle limit under the ordinance under state or federal law or under this ordinance. >> i want the message clear we can't limit the amount of times in draconian and exercise discretion in that regard unless it's absolutely outrageously unreasonable i don't know how -- like anyway i just got the message. thank you. >> any other questions before we go to public comment on this? okay. seeing none let's open it up to public comment. >> before i step away if you want at this time to see the pictures i provided. >> no, we're good. >> okay. thanks. >> okay. welcome. >> commissioners, jim lar rus from the chamber of commerce. we worked closely with supervisor tang and staff and other associations on this issue. a lot of progress has been made to really address some of the concerns initially especially for remodeled or new construction and some thresholds for the number of employees that you have at the work site dealing with new construction or remodel. there's a threshold of 50 or more employees. we've tried to make it as reasonable as possible for micro businesses. you still have the requirements under state and federal law. you still have the requirements under this ordinance to accommodate the needs of a woman employee who is lactating at your current work site to the extent that's fees and i believe worked out between the employer and the employee. some of the bigger issues we have been dealing is new construction and remodeling and what does it trigger and i think there's still an outstanding issue over the use of the rooms and their designation as lactation versus wellness rooms that we're trying to i think pin down and maybe another piece of -- an amendment that would go before the committee to clarify they're not 50 square foot rooms and only used for lactation and that they're other wellness and health needs at the work site that the rooms can be made use of during times when a mother is not lactating in the room, so i think we're making progress on this. we look forward to a final version of the legislation at committee later this month and thank you for your advice to the author. >> thank you. >> good evening stoofen corpel with the small district council and merchants. the issue of the ada hasn't come up yet so are the rooms bigger to accommodate a wheelchair and a question to look into. second even though small businesses can negotiate this, can do all kinds of things, a hardship can come up the city is requiring you go to have some kind of a conversation with a new employee and/or put it into our handbooks. there's a cost to this and this is one more cost that small business, medium and big business in san francisco has to do, and i think the one reasonable thing we can do is ask that this in this legislation that all city contracts that the city gets involved with when buying merchandise, when asking for services out there be included in there that other employers who are doing business with the city should have to do the same thing that they're requiring the san francisco businesses to do. all these things cost money. like i say some is hard to figure out how much it is but it's a reasonable thing to start with all the different laws and this would be one of them that the lactation -- whatever the requirements are are required for every contract that the city does. thank you. >> great. thank you. any other members of the public. >> i just wanted to make a comment in reference to when it will be heard at committee so it was originally planned for april 24 but unfortunately the building inspection commission the meeting is canceled for april so this item will go to the land use committee later in may so i will let everyone know what that is. >> okay. we're still in public comment. anybody else? public comment is closed. commissioners. >> can i make a comment? >> yeah, go ahead. >> i totally get the spirit of the legislation and i thank you and san francisco for being the leader, supervisor tang. i just want to make sure to cover small businesses usually the outreach is not the best for the city especially 20 and under so i want to put in black and white what's the outreach going to be and going back to original question regarding complaints and the punitive side. i just want to make sure that this is not a tool or something that broadsides a small business like this exposes them to litigation, get sued because they're not complying so just define in black and white like you were saying leaves it gray leaves room to be sued and we don't want hey we didn't know and small businesses head is down in the business and we didn't know about the ordinance and get sued. that's all. the spirit of the law. i am with it, the legislation but we can't expose small businesses to possible litigation in the future. >> okay. any other commissioners? anybody want to take action? >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> this is an objection item so we can take action or wait until we hear what happens at land use. >> i feel more comfortable with just a little bit -- seeing the punitive said and what they think they're going to do or what the process is going to be and also the outreach to businesses with 20 under what the exact plan is. that's me but -- >> we can put that on our recommendation. >> okay. >> and did you get your answers commissioner? >> i get a lot of answers and thank you, and i think this is a work in process. it's an important ordinance, very important ordinance for businesses and for mothers in the city. i think we would be in my opinion wise waiting before we take any action since there are some unknowns. we ought to -- and we have the time so i think we should put it on the agenda and come back and revisit. after all the question is refine the ordinance such that it works and that's the purpose and intent i think for this commission is to make sure that it works for businesses and it works for mothers balancing and making sure that businesses know what they're doing and not be surprised, so i think in my opinion i join commissioner ortiz-cartagena in his recommendation to table this issue and revisit -- >> tabling it means you won't hear it. it's continue it. >> continue it, yes. >> continue it. >> okay. >> so do we have a motion to condition that item? >> i will make the motion since i proposed it. >> okay. do we have a second? >> i will second. >> i will second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. this item number 4 will be continued. thank you. next item please. >> item number 5 board of supervisors file no. 150969 planning code affordable housing bonus programs. ordinance amending municipal code section 206 to amend the 100% affordable housing bonus program to add the home-sf program and the analyze the state density bonus program and the individually requested state density bonus program to provide for development bonuses and zone modifications for the affordable housing and state density bonus program section 65915 to establish the procedures of the home-sf program shall be reviewed and approved and adding a few for application under the programs and affirming the planning department's determination under the california environmental quality act and making findings and consistency with the general plan of eight priority policies of municipal code section section we have supervisor tang tang and staff. >> thank you. we will go over slides here and thank you very much commissioners for listening to our item today about home-sf which is our effort to create more affordable housing for middle income families here in san francisco so just to begin i want to go over some of our programmatic goals one of which i stated here. so as i mentioned really trying to create more affordable housing here in san francisco, and i want to be very clear that this is one program out of many tools in the tool kit for providing affordable housing here in san francisco. as you probably know san francisco spents the vast majority of our city dollars on funding housing for the low and very low income households and this one however home-sf is designed to serve a different population, the middle income families and also as you notice at the bottom of the slide housing for families so encouraging the development of units that are beyond one studio so if you want to start a family here you can have a one, two or three bedrooms to raise your family in. this next slide without going into great detail really shows you a trend of what is happening in san francisco in terms of our population and shows you that our middle income families are leaving san francisco, and at the fastest rate of any other income levels so this is real and occurring and so we do need i believe housing policies to address this. the next slide is just a couple of basics of what the program entails but you do have another information sheet that is on my letterhead here and it's much more detailed in terms what we're actually proposing here but essentially we're saying that developers if they provide 30% affordable housing on site -- they're not allowed to fee out and on site and they provide at least 40% which are two bedrooms or a mix of 50% of two and three bedrooms then they actually get density controls relaxed and they actually get to go up two stories above existing height limits. we are not allowing developers to utilize the home-sf program if they're displacing residential uses or tenants and this applies to demolitions only for new construction. you can't just -- at the moment the way it's written can't build on top of a building but subject to further discussion, so this also applies to sites more than three units or more so it doesn't apply in rh1 or two zoning districts. we wanted to offer something that is competitive to the existing state density bonus law which has been in existence since 1979 and that law said that all the other local jurisdictions throughout the state actually have to have enabling legislation to enable density bonus and could your own that meets the expectations and higher at 30% on site and cap the height increases at two stories above existing height limits and that was determined based on really substantial detailed analysis from consultants, and so the state law is much more lenient -- in fact i feel it's important to talk about it because it's available to developers right now and we at the board of supervisors have approved a project under the state density bonus program law and so the state density bonus law doesn't have as much affordable housing and no caps on the height limit and whatever you neat to get to the 35% density increase and also they don't have the protections we do for existing tenants or residential uses so there's no requirement around that, and then when planning staff as well as owed staff come up they will show the level of detail thought we put into around helping small businesses. everything that we can possibly can short of running up against state laws that prohibit us from doing anything close to commercial rent control to really preserve small businesses that might be impacted by this program, and again i have to reiterate that if you're a developer and you're developing a project that is code conforming or you're using a state density bonus law there are no requirements around demolishing xifls units or anything you think about for small businesses so we tried hard in this case and i want to thank staff for working through with us on this. next slide shows quickly just in terms what we anticipate. home-sf is a 20 year program and over that span we anticipate we will able to produce in the program 5,000 permanently affordable housing units in combination of market rate and affordable units is 16,000 over 20 years. now you look on this chart you will see that in comparison to the state bonus density law zoning with the inclusive requirements that this program far exceeds both of those programs cruise in terms of affordable housing or housing in general. >> >> and this is really important if we're trying to keep more families here in san francisco. in terms of again i think planning staff will go over details such as the income levels we're trying to serve here. we are trying to serve people who work in the small businesses, people who are in job clarifications such as teachers, construction workers who are struggling to live in san francisco, struggle to help even provide the employment needed for all of your small businesses so i think that is really important and so now what i am going to do i will turn it over to our planning staff and they're going to wark you through more of the details where this program applies and other regulations and then after that we're going to kick it to the office of economic and workforce development staff and what we tried to do around small business help so thank you very much. >> good evening commissioners. i am from the planning staff and i am here with staff to talk about the home-sf program and we were here before you i think about a year and a half ago so this is an date on who we did in response to all of the work, all of the comments you made and all of the issues raised in that conversation, so as you know and as the supervisor alluded to most of the program area is along transit corridors, our neighborhood commercial corridors, places where there's really good access to parks and schools so it is places that are really good fit for more housing, and generally in our out lying neighborhoods, areas that we haven't update d the zoning in a long time and one thing we tried to maintain the neighborhood commercial corridor we added a requirement that any new housing would have to have in kind replacement of the commercial space that it was existing there or that could be there, and so get we get the details making sure it's the same size so they're not a lot of big footprint where we had small neighborhood scale and we have urban design guidelines what that streetscape would feel like so it's inviting to customers who are walking down the neighborhood commercial corridor. still i think what we talked last night is how do we retain the existing small businesses along the corridors and that's what i will focus on today so throughout the program area and the numbers that supervisor tang talked about there are 220 sites that we think are most likely to take advantage of this program and we can walk through the details and where the existing use is small compared to what could be built and soft or ready for development and we had a long difference last year about what it was and how we identified that and i am trying to reremind out of those sites only 92 have structures and either a gas station or a parking lot. most are empty. those that do have structures we don't have a bunch of information what the structures are. it could be a giant bank of america or a smaller use or a vacant building. we really don't know but that's what we identified as the set of questions to tackled since we talked to you last. what would happen with those projects? we think that given this is a 20 year program that would be about five structures a year that may or may not have these questions about retaining small business: we did a lot of work with o ewp and the office of small business to think about what the needs are for the small businesses. one thing we learned that early notification is really important. having time to think about how you might relocate or stay in that space when the new building arrives is rate critical so we added that early on. you're guaranteed a minimum of 18 months notice before any change to the site might have occur, so that's the minimum requirement. the other thing that we've added to the program and this is new for all of you, is a process where once that notification happens that notification will go to the planning department, to the current commercial tenants and also oewd and there is a network around the five sites per year, and with that will come a set of information about what are the best practices for helping small businesses be retained and ja kin will talk in details what they are and the services we have but that information is out there to all of the parties involved. in addition to that and i'm going to talk about this more we will then later make sure that our planning commission considers in detail what has happened between the time that that notification and the time of the commission hearing so there is a public discussion about what are the outcomes for this small business, some neighborhood serving business and that's a criteria to consider when approving the project. we will be considering a number of criteria but one of them is the outcomes for the existing commercial tenants. so let me just walk through that process and you can see up here right now this is the existing planning process for any building throughout the city so it starts. you apply early on for a preliminary project assessment or environmental review so this is really early in the development process. you might know vaguely how tall your building is, what uses you want but you haven't gone through and done all the architectural design. we start the analysis to think about transportation and all of that. that's when we require before we do any of that analysis we require that you have notified the commercial tenants and oewd and planning department there an existing commercial tenant and as you move forward through the entitlement process -- sorry, i forgotten my slide, so this is the existing, what i am talking about now is what we tad added in and the first box is the notification to the tenants. >> >> the other thing that happens during this period which is 18 months you work with oewd, and the landlord and office of small business if that's relevant to really craft a plan for what will happen with the business and we will walk through the details because that's his area of expertise and again at the end before our planning commission approves your project and that is before it goes to the building department and any construction start this is is getting the permission to build that building there will be a public discussion about what is happening with what small business. if it's a bank of america the answer might be they're moving and that's it. if it's a smaller accident the answer might be fine grain and what kinds of businesses and supports the developer was able to help with. >> >> what the city was able to with us, whether the business was able to relocate or temporarily relocate and choose to come back to the site later on in thes pro. that will be discussed publicly and oewd will provide a sort of written sort of assignment of the process that happened over this period to our planning commission so that will be in sort of the public record. if you want to get into the details these are the exact -- this is the exact language that the supervisor added to the legislation in march i think to really like determine and make sure that our commission considered these things in detail. so that's kind of the overview. i am happy to stay for questions after the presentation. i think what he will walk you through is what the process is like between notification and the public hearing around the project itself. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you so much. good evening commissioners. joaquin torres deputy director of office of economic and workforce development and i lead the mayor's initiative that focuses on 25 commercial corridors throughout san francisco. our primary goal is focus on healthy commercial districts in our neighborhoods and we do so throughout lens of small business vitality and needs. we pursue pretty much four objectives to ensure that the healthy commercial districts thrive. before i go into those i want to thank supervisor tang and the planning department staff for all of their hard work in terms of bringing this plan before you. it's really been a team effort in terms analyzing the support and services we can provide to small businesses that may be impacted through this program. the four areas that we work in are pursuing a highlight quality of life in neighborhoods. >> >> strong community capacity. making sure we have the partners on the ground and attractive physical spaces and sidewalks and small businesses thrive and the areas which our programs is primarily focused and houses. small business retention of course a priority for the city and the office of economic and workforce development and we have been upon developing with local partners services for small businesses that may be at risk or facing displacement. we have consulting and [inaudible] access to capital programs and ada nmzs and sasad and tenant improvements. newly created is the business retention and relocation program which provides as kristen was mentioning one and one case management, real estate support from in house broker, real estate acquisition and finance help, build out assistance on behalf of the small businesses and a guide and road map to go through this terms of understanding the sen steps that are important for small businesses to consider and that road map is important because we want to make sure that the businesses are aware of the path they need to take should relocation should be a necessity. that resource guide which i can go into greater detail if there are questions about those focuses on the seven areas and relocation needs assessment. what do you need in terms of next steps? identify suitable replacement locations. plan and budget for that location. where are the funds coming from for the relocation? submit an offer of intent. negotiate the lease and building out the space and the move itself. this program combines and leverages other city retention services such as the legacy program, our restaurant acceleration program, our ada program among others, and what makes this program quite special is we do have a group of individuals who are well practiced in knowing how to work with small businesses in a manageable way over a period of time to ensure they feel comfortable about what next steps they need to take. here are just some small. xas, two examples that benefit from one-on-one and customized retention and relocation services. one is a newer business, split pea restriction and south of market area and the martial arts academy in the mission. i will start with split pea. after five years on sixth street they wanted to extend their lease and during the ten antiacy they built a following of lunchtime clients however the building was sold. six times the previous sales price. the terms of the option lead them extend that you they bear the burden of the property tax. during the original lease this was an acceptable cost and however after the sale and the purchase price the cost sky rocketed many time it is over the current rate and then came the retention and relocation team on to the scene and worked with the property owner and business owner to come up with fair terms for both parties. an outcome was an affordable lease and option to extend and new water lease and property tax payments and a satisfied landlord. the tenant was thrilled with the renew ablg and looking making improvement to the safad and kitchen. another example and another small business that benefited from the program and the martial arts academy and been in business for years and on mission street and a legacy business and forced to move last year and founded in 1965 heavily involved with the community and with the elected officials and mayors and mayor helps children and adults with drugs and crime and we worked withy are tension services -- retention program and in-depth and one-on-one res and wg the small development center and marketing services, broker services to find a new location where they could afford. assistance understanding what the relocation costs may be, the estimates, financing options, marketing to increase sales, legal services access to grants through the legacy program as well as our facade and tenant improvement program and the final outcome of that was that they will stay in san francisco and they will be in cell cell it -- excelsior and a wonderful example if you take the time and those facing issues day to day or relocation and if you're thoughtful and have the right staff on hand to work with the partners we can serve the small businesses quite l that's the kind of program we're deploy for example the small businesses impacted potentially by home-sf and look forward to answering any questions. as a final piece oewd does plan to work as the planning department said to make sure there is an assessment of the work done from the time of the notification process to final review when it comes before the planning commission but look forward to answering questions later and thank you so much. >> thank you and thank you supervisor tang. and supervisor tang this is something that is long, long overdue in this city. >> absolutely. >> housing for the middle class right now it's scary, and we all talk about housing for lower income people, and trust me i am all for that, but every time it seems to be a big, big focus, and you actually have the guts to come out and talk about middle income families. as i watch families leave and i want to thank you from the bottom of my heart because last year you were here a year ago in february and you listened, and you were here last year, and we were here for like a few hours and you listened to us. you brought ja king and team in that do an amazing job in the neighborhoods and i like your solution because we got to get -- and a year ago they were talking about 1200 sites. you know as you recall and nobody knew exactly where and here you have 200 that you have identified. you know unfortunately there will be some small businesses impacted but with oewd's help we can get to that and it has to be addressed and has to be addressed now and i can't thank you enough for addressing it. >> thank you for your comments and i forgot -- there's one piece of the presentation i wanted to bring forth so you have a third packet here which says home-sf and small retention and instructions and as you see it's close to final but a packet of information that will be provided to the project sponsors and that will be used as a guide to have a discussion between a small business tenant and this information will have to be discussed during a planning commission hearing so that's the unique portion of the home-sf program. i will share with you that based on initial analysis as to the parcels that is eligible over the this time and five per year. not the best but it's a lot less scary than what i think people were talking about last year. so i wanted to put that in context. the packet and starting page five and commercial use or space exist on the project site. you say yes or no. what is the present or last use? was it a restaurant, bar, sales, other, formula retail? was notification provided? were all the commercial tenants identified of oewd and the programs and its specific work and case management that it could provide? then it goes through the conditional use findings and talk specifically whether it would remove commercial retail uses and whether there would be adverse impact and so force? was it occupied by tenants? and there's a check list here and again all this will come out to light in the planning commission hearing and i think this is a great model that you know if home-sf successfully passes with the board you might want to think about in the term for development of all types in the future and this only applies to home-sf and with they i can answer questions and staff is here as well. >> i have a question about the displacement the additional unit or units or single family by definition is included? >> exactly. only rh3 and above. >> i'm sorry. repeat. >> this program excludes rh1 or two sites and three units and above and rh3 and anything over that, anything more intense than that use. >> okay. >> so think three units or more is the easiest way. >> when we talk about displacement out of the 92 other structures there is no residential units involved? >> all of the analysis exclude any residential uses. >> even if there is no permanent displacement -- >> no person being displaced you mean? we have wiped out essentially all the parcels where there is residential use on there so regardless if they're living there or not. >> even a potential -- out of curiosity and potential of building up and accommodating more residents with the agreement to come back and excluded? >> it's excluded right now and we considered it at the first version and made people nervous and why we have the version we do today but we would love to see for example an existing building -- let's say an example two rent controlled units and opportunity to build 20 more affordable units and the developer agreed to let those people come back on their own voluntary will and so forth. that couldn't happen around this current version unfortunately, but maybe that could be something that we might want to reconsider. >> thank you. >> commissioner dooley. >> i am just curious why not add into this that people -- the developers are not allowed to eliminate the retail or commercial space below or at least for small businesses? because i know the experience when someone is displaced hard working as wa kin who is hard working and most of the businesses will not survive outside of their nairtiond. they have been there a long time and if they're displaced they're pretty much gone so i am just wondering if it had a retail or commercial space before why not require that it remain there? >> so i don't know that we're allowed to under state law, but what we're trying to do is -- so for example there is a requirement in here that you have to replace the square footage of the commercial square foot with like square footage and the information you're supposed to you can about at the planning commission and we encourage the developer to have a conversation with the small business and we hope that you want them to come back but because of commercial rent control laws at the state level we can't do anything that remotely resembles us trying to force the developer to actually have the business come back at that same rent so we would love to but everything we doing is trying to get around the restrictions that we at the state level. >> so they could if they choose to not rebuild -- when they rebuild they could just use the ground floor for another residential unit? >> no. it would be commercial. >> okay. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> yeah, they're required to replace. again the like size with commercial, yeah. >> i like that one too. commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation supervisor. yeah, i think we're basing a big assumption on the relocation piece, and kinds of an objective look at single story commercial spaces in the city. they're older and usually an older generation that had started this business, one that is probably looking towards reretirement and my question for businesses specifically gas stations or corner markets that have licensed that are conditional to the location and licenses that have been amended in the last several years -- one in particular and the health code and selling of tobacco license. if a gas station under that law needs to relocate or sell, change ownership in some way to accommodate -- maybe turn into an llc for example. they will lose the ability to resell the product to reestablish a like business, so question is there's kind of unforeseen variables with the types of businesses that might be affected and in particular regards to licensing that might be license to the location and also the fact that a lot of -- these older businesses are people that are looking to retire, and how are we going to make sure that the resale or retirement value is upheld and not undermined by this process and if there's a particular piece we can build around that and you know in addition to the relocation. >> well, i will just say that again obviously relocation is not ideal. we would hope that the existing ground floor business could come back. right? that's the ideal situation that we certainly hope and oewd staff will do their best to try. again not a guarantee because we're not allowed to guarantee that as much as we would like to so as i mentioned each year we anticipate over the 20 year span of this process maybe five business with commercial ground retail would be impacted by home-sf but as i mentioned earlier in the presentation there's no other program in the city or policy that actually does what even we're doing here under home-sf and again a developer has every right to go and have a private conversation with whoever is has a soft site maybe, and wanted to develop there and if they do a project that completely conforms with the planning code they don't have to do any of this stuff. even the check list doesn't have to come up during the planning commission hearing. if r if you're using the state bonus law you don't have to this is unique and anything short that guaranteeing the business will come back and probably the same rent is not enough. i agree. but we're trying to do everything we can in light of trying to solve for our middle income housing shortage here in san francisco while also trying to protect our small businesses as much as possible. >> thank you. then i will pass the recommendation over to the commission and if there are things we can explore in regards to existing legislation and affect a relocation of a certain business and the ability to perform in the same way. >> i think per the supervisor's comments and in terms of the road map this document provides it's not only about knowledge and a path to relocation but also a response to this would have to display from the city and our partners and property owners a level of sensitivity to the unique needs of each individual small business. i know that doesn't say there is a definitive guaranteed as to the future of the small business would be but having a tailored sensitive focused direct approach with the right partners, the right kreaktive partners, then our ability to best serve that small business is much more guaranteed but we will take your comments back thank you so much so commissioner. >> okay. any other -- commissioner riley. >> yes supervisor you mentioned earlier that only five businesses are going to be affected in one year. >> that's an estimate. >> an estimate. how did you come up with that number? >> i will turn it over to kristen from the planning department. >> so what we did was look at the sites within the program area and we said okay well some of these have residential uses, so they couldn't participate in the program. some of these have historic resources employed they couldn't. we went all of the criteria and found there were 220 sites that meet all of the criteria. >> >> now we're doing it through the computer with the data base that we have so it's pretty accurate and there are some discrepancies and what do we know what is on the sites? 98 have a parking lot, they're vacant or a gas station and 92 of them have some structure of some kind, so of those 92 we imagine well it's 20 year program. that's about five a year. some of those like i was saying earlier might not have small businesses. they may have no businesses. they maybe formula retail and actually good candidates for new development because they're larger sites so a big bank of america or something so that's kind of how we came up with the number looking at the daa we have and where the program is actually allowed. >> so have you identified the sites you will work on first some. >> yeah actually at the request of the commission last year we generated a list of all sites eligible for the program. in order for a site to be developed through this program the city really doesn't do anything. a private developer would have to select the site, acquire the land and then go through the development process. we don't -- the city doesn't play any role in that part. >> so have the developer identified what sites they want now? >> we don't have any current applications. we're waiting for the ordinance. i don't know if we've talked to you about the schedule for the legislation. amendments are made by the supervisor at land use committee in march of this month -- this year, sorry and that includes a lot of what we have been talking about today and all the protections for small business retention and our next hearing is scheduled for early may at land use and then go on to the full board so once it's legislated then we might hear from project sponsors about sites they have interest in. >> okay. thank you. >> sioux. >> okay. any other commissioner comments before we open up for public comment? >> >> okay. let's open up for public comment here. do we have any names? >> we have two speaker cards. first is kevin burke and next is steve doyle. >> welcome and thank you. >> three minutes. great. how's it going? thank you very much for having comment on this issue and thanks for having this meeting at night time. it beats a lot of the city meetings held at 2:00 p.m. which is tougher to get to. my name is kevin burke and a renter and a small business owner and llc and software consulting. i am speaking in favor of the motion. i think this plan would increase the number of housing units in san francisco. an increased number of units would help decrease housing prices in san francisco as we've seen in denver and san francisco over the course of 2016 we brought a ton of housing units online and we saw rents decrease by five to 9%. in particular in the tech industry high housing prices mean that you have to get a more stable salary which means you have to work for in general a larger company like facebook or a sales force or twitter or larger employer in the region. lower rents increase innovation and creativity and the software industry whether starting your own business which maybe a new start up or encouraging venturing out on your own as i have done. it's easier to do when rents are low and i think this would go a long way to help with that to lower rents and make those sorts of businesses more viable. high prices make it more difficult for our firefighter, police, teachers to live in the neighborhoods and our children as i hope to one day start a family and have them continue to live here in the city. the small business benefits from lower prices -- might be a little nebulous; right? lower prices mean at margin small businesses are more viable and people will start more small businesses but you can't point to a specific small business and it would be impacted or improved by lower rents. in the ag gatd lower rents make it more viable and the unspoken number of large small businesses that might be formed and keeping housing prices low in the region. and also i would like to point out that the least able to afford housing in the region are the disadvantaged communities in particular i know several women who have left san francisco area to start families in the tech industry because it's too expensive to raise a family here particularly in disadvantaged communities might find it difficult to find housing and the cheaper we can make it and the more housing easier to find housing here and start businesses. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hey there. happy opening day. we heard a reference earlier to the urgency of the question of middle class housing. i will add my story to the mix as well. i run a small arts non-profit and immersive arts community and epic immersive and work across the city and a project might include 100 artists and diverse cross section of folks across the income spectrum and race and culture and the city's geography and one of the main topics of conversation is always anxiety over the housing crisis and displacement. there's a level of inevitability to the conversations. how long will you be here? when will you be kicked out? where will you go? we're in the miftses a housings crisis but the conversations are not limited in the low income friends but the middle income friends and the housing size is after them. seems there is a psychological and economic effect of the feelings. why develop a relationship with the local coffee shop or hardware store when you believe your encounter with san francisco is brief. i have friends looking at starting families and zero are starting in san francisco and why the city gets more 'children of men' every year and to be a proposal to increase the middle class housing without displacement of tenant and businesses and zero cost to the taxpayer strikes me as a godsend. i can tell you personally it's a value to the artistic community. i can see the people it will help and the children it will help and more housing is important to sustainable the arts ecosystem in san francisco and matters not just for the intrinsic reasons and touching the heart and more human and the economic system around the arts and the folks that have dinner and drinks afterward. the money spent on spaces and equipment and construction of sets and props and costumes from local and vendors within the city and payment to the artists themselves who being low and middle income spend the money quickly and locally. seems like carving out more housing for the middle class is a vital public good. i want to thank you guys for the work you have put into this. thank you for considering it and i hope you support home-sf. thank you. >> thank you. welcome thank you. >> thank you. steven cornell from the council district merchants. our group of course want more middle class housing but i think we should focus more on small businesses. let me get down to realities. i will pick two. these will affect mainly the commercial strips and neighborhoods. i will pick two of them that i am close to that i know well where my business is polk and sacramento. four corners and two of them would be ripe for this. one story businesses. a hardware story -- my hardware store has a cu so fileave i can't be in the neighborhood without a conditional use permit. it's only 3,000 square foot. where am i going to move to while this happens and while i come back? where are my customers going to go during that period and inventory? it's an nightmare. the other corner has a restaurant and has a conditional use for that spot. they're going to move. they're not going to find another restaurant space to go in there temporarily they get back to this. they will lose the customers over a long period of time. second intersection where i live which is in the west portal area. 14th and west portal. four corners. three of which will have a big problem. restaurant on one corner. where are they going to go? there's a cu on that one. the other corner bank of america. they referred to bank of america and a viable business and in the neighborhood. if the bank goes it needs a conditional use to go anywhere in the neighborhood. how's that going to survive and will they come back? the other corner has a financial institution on it, same situation. if you don't think this is real a few months ago we had a big fire cole hardware burned down on mission street. they wanted to stay in the neighborhood. they were looking all over. they didn't have any problem with money or getting help. the city was trying to help them. a lot of people were trying to help them. couldn't find a place. i think that area without a basic business like a hardware store is going to change down the road and last thing they talked about some of the sites that are prime for this, parking lots and gas stations. they are small businesses also. i think they're also very important. parking lots are going away in this city. the city is not building anymore. so to say this is a prime spot and we're going to make it easier for a developer to go in there that means less parking. this is something that many of the neighborhood businesses need. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. this is an action item. would we like to take action on this item? i would like to motion to support this and i hear what our last speaker said, but on the flip side of that is we need workers to work in our small businesses, and our workers and our small businesses are not living in san francisco anymore. i am trying to hire at my bank and i'm interviewing people who live in tracy,anteock, pittsburgh and can't afford to live in san francisco anymore. i know how many restaurants in this town you know have to close up before 11:00 o'clock at night so their workers can take bart back because they cannot no longer afford to live here? and i think that is -- we're not going to have any small businesses left in this town if you can't get people to work in them, and so i totally support this legislation, and a motion to approve it. >> i would like to second that and say that home-sf is a very good idea. i think the mitigation and impact on small businesses is limited within the state law, political state law therefore we can't go finished that. >> >> we cannot impose more than the ordinance enforces and therefore i support it myself and support your motion -- second your motion. >> thank you. >> okay. should we do roll call or all in favor? >> roll call. >> commissioner adams. . >> yes. >> commissioner dooley. >> no. >> commissioner dwight is absent. commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> yes. >> commissioner riley. >> yes. >> commissioner zouzounis. >> no. >> that motion passes 4-2 with one absent. >> thank you. thank you for listening to this commission from a year ago. next item please. >> i also want to say go giants. i wasn't anti-giants. >> they won today. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> 4-1. >> item number 6 board of supervisors file number 170206 planning code off-street parking and loading requirement. ordinance amending the planning code to clarify and consolidate language and delete e dunlt constituencies and out dated proscription correct errors and erroneous cross reservations and making minor substances changes to the update provisions and affirming the california environmental quality act and determinations making finds of the consistency of the general plan and eight priority policies of the municipal code section section and adopting findings and public convenience, necessity and welfare under planning code section 3 02 and we have diego sanchez from the planning department. >> welcome. >> i am diego sanchez and this is a ordinance from 2016 and subsequently supported by supervisor farrell's office in 2015. the ordinance proposes update the off-street parking and parking controls and the changes enacted with the reorganization project and begun more than three years ago and aim to make the planning code consistent and easier to use. commissioners the proposed ordinance is guided by three broad principles. the first is to assure references to land use and activities are consistent across the planning code specifically all land uses and activities reservations should be consistent with those found in section 102. >> >> which is the land use definition section. the second broad goal is facilitate the planning code and sections relating to similar land use of forces in one section and other sections eliminated and the third goal is enact clerical corrections and typographical errors and erroneous sections not in use. the update of the parking tables is the best example of aligning the planning code with the project and the tables are used to determine parking requirements on land use or aciffity. they use out of date instead the sections. this needs fixing and combines restaurant uses with swraiment entertainment uses and this proposeds to separate the distinct land uses according to the use groupings in section 102 and mentioned as the section defining land uses. the ordinance also proposes clerical and typographical corrections and correcting cross references and adding subsections titles and examples are the addition of subsection heading titles to propose 155 which is found on pages 35-39 and another example the deliegz of references to section 1 51 in the zoning control tables for sectionsessa 840 through 846 and they're found on pages 67-74. it's errors like this and section 1 51 does not apply to the code sections and the where the ordinance is trying to clarify the confusion. the other changes proposed in the ordinance include revising the definition of occupied floor area in section 102 to exclude areas for accessory parking. this avoids including areas including them into the calculation of areas required to provide parking and thereby eliminating the provision of parking for areas devoted to parking. another change proposed consolidating the five provisions for establishing maximum quantities of parking under the section from five -- complicated provisions to more straightforward ones and a final example is the consolidation of conditional usifiedings for residential projects within a residential subsection as well as the consolidation of conditional use findings for non residential projects within that section and section 3 03. so commissioners i tried to give you a sense of what this ordinance is proposing to do. it's very much as the title says a clerical clean up. there are some minor changes and i have highlighted those to you. this concludes my presentation and i am available for questions. thank you. >> any commissioner questions? it is clean up legislation. >> the minor substantive changes relate to parking and loading requirements, correct? >> parking requirements, yes, off-street parking. that's correct. >> and the rest is clean up -- >> the majority -- >> redundancies -- >> reorganizing sections. >> cleaning it up. >> , yeah making it more logical and matching the definitions under 102 that were instituted in beginning in 2014. >> this is necessary to clarify what is in place? >> yes. >> updating to comply with things that have been changed prior -- >> that's correct, yeah. >> is this -- oh discussion. thank you. >> any other commissioner comments? >> i have a question. >> okay. >> i am sorry. i stepped out for a minute so if i miss thursday clarification i apologize. >> >> sure. >> section 1 50 off-street parking loading requirements e reduction and replacement of off-street parking spaces. what is that referring to? like is there -- is it requiring a replacement of -- >> so yeah the underlying -- this is under section 1 66e, this option that allows somebody to provide a car share space in lieu of off-street parking. what we have done we basically reiterated that ability in this section 1 50e so this is not a requirement but an option. should someone choose to do it they can and we want to make sure that if you will advertise both under section 1 66 as well as here, 150. >> so it just makes that an option -- >> further clarifies an existing option. this option already exists and mentioned in 166 and the proposals to bring it also to 150 -- >> that doesn't include yellow zones? >> no. i think this is off-street parking so the yellow zone is on street and the planning code couldn't speak to that. >> oh got you. >> this is not a new. you are just reiterating what is stated in another section, correct? >> in this instance, yes. >> yes, just so like if it's in section 102 and now in the correct section. it makes sense. it's clean up. >> got it. >> [inaudible] >> any other questions before we go to public comment? okay. let's open it up for public comment? do we have any members of the public that would like to make a comment? >> steven cornell. first of all we just heard this has been in planning for three years have been working on it. since it works on the commercial properties, parking, different things around commercial. i don't think there anybody any outreach to any business group or business to the business community about this like why didn't the planning department come out to the people this is going to affect and just ask about it? it's very disconcerting we just heard about it a couple of weeks ago indirectly and now it comes up here. it's very complicated, hard to follow. what i could see it's mostly clean up but i think there are recalculations of the number of parking spaces for new buildings out there and reduces the number of parking spaces so the way i understand it if there's a parking lot in order in the mix now you have to use that as square footage to require other parking, but what it's going to be -- you don't use that square footage. i think that means a net loss of parking spaces in the project. i don't know about some of the other details but it is disconcerting that here's a piece of legislation going through three years and affecting businesses and their properties and nobody ever came and talked to the business and said "what do you think ?" . thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. that's a good question so how is your public outreach on this? >> yeah. diego sanchez with staff. to make a correction this ordinance has been in the works since 2016. the overall project which the reorganization project has been in the work for three years but not this aspect of it so minor correction. the gentlemen is true. there was little outreach if none to the business community and it's because of almost respect for their time given this is overwhelming code clean up so the thought was instead of wasting their precious time and talking about the typographical errors corrected, the sections consolidate friday one -- from one section to another there wasn't any outreach. >> >> i have a question and in response to the concern is it true further restrict parking for businesses? and so could could you point out where the restriction is? >> existing businesses are not affected by this and important to note that generally a business has to be 5,000 -- has to have 500 square feet of occupied floor area before they're required to provide parking so for the smaller businesses any changes here are inconsequential. i believe what the gentleman that provided public comment to is on page 12 of your packet and i made reference to this regarding 150c about the maximum parking permitted as accessory, so there are five provisions existing. this ordinance is proposing to whittle those down to two. >> oh this is -- under c maximum parking -- >> yes, that's right so if you look at c you see a subsection 1, subsection 2 and flip the page to 13 and it goes down to five. those are existing provisions how to calculate maximum permitted parking as accessory. this ordinance is proposing to consolidate the five to two and i would argue they're a little more straightforward and we're basically preserving the first one which is allowing 150% of the required number of spaces so if you were allowed ten you could go up to 15 and then the second provision that we're proposing parking is not required for a use which is under number two. i think it's on line seven of page 13. >> yes, yes. >> so we're propose ago there are some uses there is no parking required for example like a utility type of use like a pg&e type of utility and one doesn't necessarily think people aren't showing up on a daily basis so there is no parking required but in it an instance if there is a desire for parking and the maximum is is listed there and three spaces where the area has zero occupied area and we're allowing three. >> so is it the opposite? you're giving the opportunity for parking for spaces not required to have parking and then you're going up from ten to 15 -- i mean is that more restrictive or less restrictive? >> so the first one is more restrictive and mobile in the instance of. >> >> more in the instance a three unit building and right now they're allowed to -- or we're proposing -- two unit excuse me. they're allowing three spaces and then four parks spaces as a prime example. in the example of a home it's taken down a space. >> talking about a home. >> yeah. and as i mentioned before most businesses unless they have 5,000 square feet or exceed 5,000 square feet of occupied floor area aren't required to provide any parking around the planning code and that provision is being taken forward in this proposal as well so that's being untouched. >> commissioner riley. >> you mentioned that a two unit building would require three parking spaces instead of four. >> they are allowed up to four. they're required two. they're allowed up to four in the current condition right now. this would be taking that down to three, awe onllowed uch to three. >> if they want four can they have four? >> no. under this proposal, no. >> so what's the purpose of that? that purpose is that proposal is in line with the transit first policy and encourage other modes of transportation other than the private automobile. that's what informing that decision. also as you also heard as well we're in the midst of a housing crisis so we want to encourage the use of any buildable space for housing or small business space for any use other than the store afnlg private automobiles so that's the other concept that's informing that decision. >> but if there are four cars they can park one on the street; right? >> if they can find parking on the street the planning code doesn't speak to that. the planning code will speak what is on a property, on a private property. if they can park five, six, seven cars on the street the planning code doesn't speak to that at all. it's what they're going to build on their property. >> and that's going to create more parking shortage -- parking space shortage then. >> [inaudible] >> certainly i recognize that trade off. there's a trade off providing space for private automobiles versus housing or small businesses or other uses, but i recognize that, yeah. >> commissioner dooley. >> i just wanted to comment about our speck speaker said and the planning department when they make the changes, these cleanups, whear thereafter called. >> >> they must do outreach to those affected. it's not your call to exclude people and the planning department has done this many times and i am just making a loud and clear request that you stop doing that and you remember that you are dealing with people who are affected and not make that call that they don't need to be informed. >> i apologize for that. i recognize the error and in deference i want to let you know that going forward we will reach out in every instance and i apologize again for that oversight. >> okay. do we want to take action on this? commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> are we done with public comment? >> yes. >> i personally believe that this is clean up legislation, and every time i see clean up i support. i think the outreach is important. however, in this case since it is predominantly a deminious change of clean up i make a motion that we support it. >> do we have a second? >> i will second it. >> okay. a motion by commissioner tour-sarkissian and second by commissioner ortiz-cartagena. commissioner adams. >> yes. >> commissioner dooley. >> yes. >> commissioner dwight is absent. pardon me. commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> yes. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> yes. >> commissioner commissioner riley. >> yes. >> commissioner nis. >> no. >> that motion passes 5-1 with one absent. >> okay. next item please. >> thank you. >> item 7 proposed additional rule for the legacy business historic preservation fund rules and regulations for rent stabilization grants. discussion item. our presenter is richard kurylo legacy business program manager, office of the small business. >> good evening commissioners. richard kurylo legacy business program manager. i have a powerpoint presentation today. this is an information item on a proposed addition to the rules and regulations for rent stabilization grant for the legacy business program. i will provide the text of the new rule, a background on the accept rent stabilization grant and a lease scenario, the need for the proposed rule, the rule decoded and next steps and there's a copy of the powerpoint presentation in your binder. i am going to read the whole rule so you can follow along. the proposed new rule is as follows: a lease or lease extension that satisfies the criteria for a grant under administrative code section 2 a2 43c shall render a landlord eligible to receive a grant under the section as early as the fiscal year in which the lease or lease extension is executed. even if the lease or extension does not take effect until a later fiscal year. a qualified landlord need not wait for the qualifying lease or lease extension to take effect before applying or receiving a grant. if however the qualified landlord applies for a grant before the lease or lease extension has taken effect the landlord must as a condition of receiving a grant agree to return the entire amount of the grant in the event for any reason the qualifying lease or lease extension doesn't take effect. so i will run through this so you have a better understanding of what is going on here. the rent stabilization grant as you know is an incentive for landlords to enter into long-term agreements with legacy businesses. the lease agreement must be a new lease for term of at least ten years or the extension of existing lease to two of ten years and equals $4.50 per square foot and 500 square foot maximum and annually each of the year or extended term. instructions in the application are on the office of small businesses' website. following is a lease scenario. a legacy business has an existing five year lease from january 1, 2015 through december 31, 2019. in april 2017 which is now about two years have passed and three years remain. the landlord extends the lease to december 31, 2024 which is five additional years and is now eligible for five years of rent stabilization grants. the lease extension years are indicated here in the presentation. technically we could wait until january 1, 2010 which is fiscal year '19-20 to pay the landlord. that's when the lease extension begins. doing that however would erode the incentive for landlords to enter into long-term agreements with legacy businesses and furthermore it would encourage lmds to wait for the lease extensions and hurt legacy businesses. they might not have to wait for it to take effect before receiving the grant. that's the proposal we're doing. in fiscal year '16-17 which we're in now will pay the lease extension year january 1, 2020 to december 31, 2020. in fiscal year '17-18 which is next fiscal year we will pay lease extension year january 1, 2021 to december 31, 2021 and so on. the problem if the landlord has received a grant before the lease or lease extension has taken effect and for some reason the qualifying lease or lease extension does not take effect the solution the landlord has a condition of receiving a grant agree to return the entire amount of the grant in the event that for any reason the qualifying lease or lease extension does not take effect. based on the information and scenario i provided i have decoded the proposed new rule so i will go through that with you right now. there is a blue box on the top right. simplified translation of the proposed new rule. a rent stabilization grant to a landlord can be paid when the landlord applies even if the payment year precedes the lease year. if the payment year does precede the lease year the landlord must agree and the grant application to return the funds it doesn't occur. pretty simple when you break it down. next steps after presenting this to you today as an inform item we will present to as a discussion and action item on april 24. then if approved by the small business commission will submit the rue rule to the clerk of the board for review by the board of supervisors. this concludes my presentation. i am happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> are we getting a lot of landlords working with us on this? >> we have two applications so far the first one received does fall under this rule. >> okay. >> and the other one does not but we have a lot of interest in this grant. we had phone calls from about maybe five landlords and maybe ten legacy businesses so 15 total. >> go ahead. commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> you know before getting to the amendment i want to ask you a question because it created a confusion in my mind. when we start the process we said that the lees has to be ten years either five years existing let's say and added on to that another five so that brings us to ten years, or a brand-new lease for ten years, correct? >> yes. >> in your example you took an example of a lease that has only three years are maintaining. in my mind i thought in order to reach the ten years you would have to offer another seven to bring it to ten. is that your understanding or am i off base? >> my understanding is the way in the powerpoint presentation. are you looking at the existing lease and seeing how many years that is and bringing that to ten years or more and then you're eligible for that many. >> but if -- following that reasoning -- i may be wrong. i am just want to understand. if you have only three years left on your lease -- let's say it's a 20 year lease. it's not a five year lease. 20 year lease and you burned 17 and have three left. how are you going to meet the ten year requirement? how is that going to work is my concern? >> so we looked into this really closely. we decided and we worked with the city attorney on this what does happen if you have an existing lease that is ten years or more already, and there's two different ways to approach this. one is a more liberal where you say okay you already have a lease that is more than ten years. any amount that you extend that lease since it's already ten years or more the landlord is eligible for grants so we decided to go that route. the other route would be that once you hit that ten year limit you couldn't do anymore lease extensions. you need a new lease for the grant but we wanted to try the liberal method if it works and seems to be working. the grant application we got ex ex tended the lease eight years and tried to hit ten. they had the same question you d they thought they were extending to ten but it was eight because there was existing time that passed by but anyway that's how we're going to approach it. >> so we don't take the balance of the term of the lease. we take the initial term -- >> that's correct. >> -- and add on another five and hope to get -- so let me ask you another question. if it is let's say a seven year lease initially, seven year lease, would the landlord qualify if they give a three year extension? >> to ten years. that's correct. eligible for three years of credits. >> so we're doing this to open up for as many potential landlords? >> that's correct, yes. it's actually the way the legislation was written it was written that seven year to the ten year and where you add three. that's how the legislation was written. yeah. so that would capture a lot more landlords giving -- [inaudible] to the legacy businesses. >> and i think commissioners i mean obviously you're making the final decision so you're going to need to be comfortable with the proposed regulations and this is not an action item tonight, so the ability to propose this all -- all of the examples of course vetted with the city attorney so i think ultimately one question is we want to ensure we're incentivizing longer term leases than -- but for existing businesses with existing leases this might help push out a little more time to be in that location before than having to renegotiate a longer term lease. >> yes, this particular rule is regarding the offset of the fiscal year and the grant year and we're tracking close leer and 16 -- 16, 17 and tracking that and otherwise we have to wait to. >> the idea is open up to as many landlords and take into account the existing lease to reach the ten years instead of relying on what is left plus what should be added to reach the ten years -- >> yes. >> this way -- i am summarizing. takes a yes or no. you can't say but -- >> it's not what this rule is necessarily about. it's a different thing but yes that's -- that is -- >> what we adopted. >> yes, it's what we adopted. >> okay. >> any other questions? >> yes on page three the same example so we're paying the landlord 2016 -- 17 -- for the year 2020. >> so i think it's this slide that we have right here. which number is that? >> page three. the bottom screen. >> lease scenario. >> lease extension year -- calendar year 24. >> even though we start paying them now but we're not paying for the current three years? >> that's correct. >> we're paying for the 21, 22, 23, 24 and only paying for five years. >> we're paying for five years but the lease and grant years are offset. that's why we ran into the problem is how do we -- we want to be able to do that because if we don't then the landlord is not going to enter into this agreement now. they're going to wait three years and we would rather they do it now, so we -- >> so the current three years we're not paying them. i mean the money is actually for -- >> right. the extended -- >> the extended years. >> that's correct. >> so they wouldn't get payment for like the last three years -- >> that's correct. >> of the extended lease? >> yes. >> is it attractive to the landlord? >> yes definitely. >> you say we give them ten years and only paying for five. >> the legislation does say if the existing lease is less than ten years and extonight to ten years and they get seven year lease and extend to ten they get three years of grants so that's in the legislation and that has been really attractive to the landlords. they're very interested. >> if i were the landlord i would send my application for the grant for ten years. i only get paid for five. how do they feel about that? >> it's already an existing five year lease and they're extending it five more so they're getting paid for the extended part of the lease. >> i think the confusion is in qualifying the landlord. the landlord is going to qualify he or she gives five years provided that the initial lease is five years or more regardless of how much time left on the lease so assuming that you have five years initially on the lease and give five year extension then you qualify. >> right. >> regardless how many time left on the lease. >> that's correct. >> the qualification issue and not a payment issue. qualify under the ordinance to get money for that extension and the question is when does that money start flowing before the expiration of the initial lease or thereafter? that's the question that is before us today. >> yes. >> okay. >> and i think commissioners what you need to ensure for yourself and the fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers that what kind of documentation needs to be there to ensure that the landlord is really making the commitment to the business and that when that three years come up and they renegotiate that the actual renegotiation does happen, so you may not be able to speak to that tonight and if you think you need more time to really think through that or in between now and the next meeting for us to communicate to you more on that. as we said we sort of set out a time table but if we need to take one more meeting to have a thorough discussion on that we can do that. >> okay. anymore questions? let's open it up for public comment. do we have any members of the public that would like to make any item number 7? seeing none. public comment is now closed. thank you richard. next item. >> item number 8 approval of march 27, 2017 meeting minutes. this is an action item. >> do we have a motion to approve the march 27 meeting minutes? >> i move. >> i second. >> okay. the motion by commissioner dooley. second by commissioner riley. all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. that motion passes 6-0 with one absent. >> okay. next item please. >> item 9 -- >> oh we didn't ask for public comment so we do have public comment on our meeting minutes? seeing none. public comment is now closed. do we want to stand our -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, read the motion, commissioner dooley and commissioner riley. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. that motion passes to approve the minutes 6-0 with one absent. >> next item please. >> item 9 director's report update and report on the office of small business and small business assistance center and department programs and policy and legislative matters and announcements from the mayor and announcements of regarding business activities. >> commissioners my report -- i mean you heard a good portion of it last time. there isn't much new items to report in regards to small business and legislative matters before the commission. i want to do a special acknowledgment in a few days it's monica's one year anniversary so just acknowledge that and just want to acknowledge that she has been here for one year. [applause] >> she cleaned us up on the minutes. >> so to thank her for all her work. and then i will be forwarding you a couple in the chronicle on sunday they did an article on the soft story update and doing a push on is that and again that will be something that will probably start coming more to this commission's attention and we may -- so we will probably after we get through some of the new business items work on an update presentation from the department of building and inspection and the resiliency project on how things are going with the properties that have businesses inside them, so i think that concludes my report. i don't have much else to add. >> okay. do we have any public comment on the director's report? seeing none. public comment is now closed. next item please. >> item 10 commissioner's reports. allows president and vice president and commissioners to report on recent business activities and make announcement that are of any to the small business community. discussion item. >> i don't have anything tonight. >> [inaudible] >> william commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> i want to thank a couple of people for an event in the mission district this saturday [inaudible] and president of the low rider council and our mission. they did a culture of land screening two times [inaudible] on 24th and inviting low riders from the region to come and celebrate a cultural event on mission corridors. we blocked -- they blocked off the streets from 24th to 26th for low riders to park and the environment was just crazy. i mean it was like the 80's again. a lot of low riding, a lot of families, a lot of necessary foot traffic after the red carpeting of the district and thank them for putting that together and it was i a whole shm festive environment. it was overall nice. it was good. commissioner zouzounis attended as well. it was just -- thank you and those are the kind of events when departments and the city put cultural centric events together and executed magnificently i wanted to recognize that. >> great. thank you. any other commissioners? commissioner zouzounis. >> so i was in sacramento the other week helping senate wiener propose a piece of legislation that would allow san francisco to make a mobile recycling centers to offset what a lot of small businesses, small retailer -- small grocers are dealing with in terms of the california litter reduction act. >> >> known as the bottle bill and redeeming cans and bottles so we're waiting if that will go through, but those small businesses collecting cans and bottles listening there is a glimmer of hope we don't have to keep doing that. >> thank you. commissioner dooley. >> last week i attended a meeting of the coalition of independent pet stores raising the alarm once again.n 't not only are they dealing with formula retail here in the city but now it seems as though a number of the online sites that sell pet food are receiving extremely large discounts for having their product on the website and one of them even requires the food manufacturers to pay them $20,000 on be on their website, so once again the small businesses -- their backs are against the wall. when working with them to try to figure out some way to level this pricing for them because we already just -- i heard yesterday we lost another long time pet supply store in the marina. they said they couldn't complete anymore against the formula retail that's there and now with this we're going to see -- this is going to be -- this industry is going to be one that is going to be dying because they just cannot compete with everything that is thrown against them so i wanted bring that up and then friday i was honored by the board of supervisors for my commitment to retaining small businesses in our neighborhoods and particularly for my finally successful ten year effort to bring an independent hardware store to north beach. [applause] >> they're going to put that -- [inaudible] place. thank you. >> thank you. i am so happy. our neighborhood is so happy. >> congratulations. >> and commissioner yee riley. >> yes, i was talking to one of the banks and about the small business week and sprear -- they're interested to be one of the sponsors and participate in small business week so i put them in touch with steve -- >> adam strauss. >> great. >> thank you. >> any other commissioner reports? okay. can we have public comment on item 10? seeing none. public comment is now closed. item 11. >> item 11 new business. allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for future consideration by the commission. discussion item. >> any new items at the moment? and do we have any public comment on item 11? seeing none. public comment is now closed. item number 12 adjournment. >> sfgtv could you please show our slide in closing? >> okay. the office of small business is your one stop shop for small business issues and items and once again our advice is free so please come see us at the office of small business. >> a motion to adjourn. >> i'm sorry. item number 12 adjournment action item. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> meeting adjourned. >> thank you. >> meeting is adjourned -- what time is it? 7:58 p.m.

Related Keywords

United States , Mission District , California , Georgia , California Building , San Francisco Bay , Sacramento , Alcatraz , North Beach , Denver , Colorado , San Francisco , America , American , Tang , Josh Pryor , Kevin Burke , Gwen Stefani , Steven Cornell , Katy Tang , Steve Doyle , Yee Riley , Diego Sanchez , Steve Adam Strauss , Joaquin Torres ,