commissioner dwight: i think if we would say an outsider would get 4%, and an insider will get to%, i think what i recognize is the goodness of this be corp. movement. it is good, and i think san francisco would be the right place to taking a leadership position, at least on the west coast, and i think we have to be careful that we could undermine our previous legislation around local businesses by having this differential, because it would then allow -- it would sort of create perverse outcome of all of a sudden be corporations from the outside had an advantage over local. we have a very direct effort to carve out a bid preference for local businesses, so let's not up and that it inadvertently, --

let us not upend that. we want to knowledge that this is a good trend, a trend that is likely to continue, and one we would like to take a leadership role on. i think we can do it in a very simple way by knowledge in a percentage for those to meet beebe corporation definition and separate it from the local. treat them both on their own merits. president o'brien: janet? clerk: can you put that into a word as a motion? commissioner dwight: a preference if they are be corporations, and excuse me if i am not using the right terminology, and it be the same if they are local or not local.

i move that whatever percentage, that we agree to give for being a b organization, that'd be the same for a local company as it is for a non local company. commissioner yee riley: i think that is the way it is written right now. it is just about the age%? director: it is not written that way. commissioner dwight: maybe i misread it. director: a benefit corporation regardless if you are in town or out of town, whether you are in san francisco-based company or not in san francisco-based company. if you are a certified lbe, and you are also a benefit

corporation, then you get an additional 2% added to your bid discount. commissioner dwight: so it would be 10% plus 2%, and you would be competing -- but that is just in the same way, it has -- i do not know the right term for it, but it has the same effect that we just talked about. you can only get two extra points for being and local, and you can get eight extra points and narrow the gap for what would be two if you're an outsider, versus 12, to making it 8% versus 12, so that is a huge difference.

just the way it is written. commissioner yee riley: if i qualify for both, i should get 18%. commissioner dwight: no, no, because i am not going to recommend 8%. i am going to recommend that what is given, that that same it 2% be given, whether it is 2%, 4%, i think we want to maintain the differential. this is competing against a non

local, non-b corporation. >> we came up with 8%, just looking at the existing percentage for local businesses, but we really did not have a strong reason to start with 8%, and we are definitely open to adjusting that in the downward direction, but we did not want it to act to get a team, because at that point, you might start distorting the bidding process, when you get someone who is less qualified to do the job, so that is why we did not do additives for that part. yes. i think we are open to 6, 5. maybe the recommendation could be less than six or seven, in consultation with the controller, whatever. commissioner dwight: i would just like to see it not be

different. those two are added. you get x plus y. if you are local and not b, you get x, and the criteria is only if you are local or not local or if you are b or non-b. that is my suggestion. director: if i understand, commissioner dwight, we have those inside san francisco, outside san francisco -- commissioner yee riley: so are we did with the 8%?

director: know, something that it would aid like or less than six. director -- commissioner dwight: you get the other preference or being local or not local, and that the two are added, so whenever that percentage, not to exceed whatever percentage we decide it should be. that is sort of directing supervisor chiu that we believe there should be some sort of threshold but does not distort and where a local guy is getting 10 plus, and then we are starting to mess around with the local. commissioner: i this want to make sure that we are talking about this being based on the dollar threshold. where your business has to be registered here, but you could be in the oil business that is a non lbe which is a larger

business. with the discussions that have been had about the higher cost of having your business inside san francisco, even for larger businesses, it is still a higher cost, so i just want to make sure that everything is thought about in terms of a recommendation in terms of not trying to give direction, but making sure the consideration for the non lbe san francisco- based businesses, then that is thought of. commissioner dwight: you can be local and the an lbe without being incorporated. you cannot meet the definition of b without being unincorporated. we actually do not have a situation where you can be,

let's say, if you are going to be local and b, you must change your corporate status, if you are not already a california corporation. as currently defined lbe to go and get blessed as meeting the b standards. they literally have to become a california benefit corp., which means they have to change their status if they are not incorporated, that is an important distinction. commissioner: for me, that is like a lower amount. president of brian: can we put it like this, that the minimum benefit should be 2%, and the maximum benefit should be no more than 6%, because that takes into account the distortion

concern, and i would ask, and also to -- what is the word i'm looking for, the comptroller's office, to try to discount the extra fees for doing business in san francisco, to the legislation, would that get us through here? director? just to get this over? director: there is a high-level complication in terms of having the controllers office dealing with setting some calculations, and i think in terms of oca and hrc, we have gone to the

straight percentage. now, if the comptroller saba's is to help provide some information to make those determinations, but i would think, and catherine, you can speak to this, but i am hesitant to say that the controller, that would be a whole new piece of legislation that we would have to draft. commissioner dwight: as supervisor chiu has said, if that has to be a second issue, he is happy to promote that. that was contemplated in the establishment of an apprenticeship get for being an lbe. most rapidly, to get out of the argument about whether it should be different for an inside

company versus an outside company, so our recommendation was that it should be no more than 6%, no less than 2%, and that it should be applied equally to a local or a non local company. that would be enough guidance to allow this to proceed. i think for the future, and discussing whether there should be a different lbe situation, i think that would be different. to try to incorporate that and manipulates the b president's -- president -- precend -- preendence. clerk: commissioner? commissioner: to look and see if

there needs to be any reassessment. if there are any benefit corporations being afforded contracts, but if there needs to be a distinction between out of san francisco and in san francisco, so allow the time for the legislation to be and city, contracts are awarded and what kind of effect it has come and gone with commissioner dwight, for the non lbe businesses. commissioner dwight: let me see if i can get through this. i move that we propose a california benefit corporation preference not to exceed 6%, but not to be less than 2%, to be extended to any company meeting

the cbc definition period, and that we have a reassessment period of three years, where in three years' time, we will come back and determine whether the preference we have defined for the status is a good one. is where we want it to be a. so what this motion says is we are going to extend a cbc preference of x%, between 2% and 6%, and that we are not going to make any distinction about whether that company is a local company or not a local company, because that is already dealt with. we have lbe legislation on the books that says if you are, you get a preference, so let's just not go there. let's just say we are adding a

cbc preference, which is between 2% and 6%, which will be reviewed in three years. commissioner yee riley: it does not matter if you are local or not. it would apply equally, so if you are a local business, you are entitled to 10%, and if you are local and regional director: can i just make a clarification? we are talking local. lbe could be levi's. commissioner yee riley: 10%. so what if you are both? commissioner dwight: they are additive. it would be for a meeting the cbc criteria. we are not touching the lbe

criteria. commissioner yee riley: so what if you are both? commissioner dwight: it would be in between 2% and 6%. if you are not an lbe, you would get back x% if you need to -- if you meet the criteria. president o'brien: it is already in there. commissioner dwight: all the factors that make it more expensive to do business in san francisco. a later discussion. we are recommending that the percentage be between somewhere between 2% and 6% to be defined as the preference to be applied as the preference, regardless of

whether or not you are an lbe. commissioner yee riley: the 2% or 6%? commissioner dwight: i do not think this was ever a proposal where you would get 10% plus 8%. it became an 8% vs. 12%. president o'brien: so is that a motion? clerk: would you like me to read this the way it is written? i have provided benefit corporation discount of not less than 2%, not more than 6%, and remove the differential between the local benefit corporation to the non local benefit corporation. a certified lbe sba and the

benefit corp. discounts may be combined. we would request that the controller after three years do an about tuition on those percentages. commissioner dwight: that sounds excellent. president of ryan: -- o'brien: i second. director: do you understand how the legislation was drafted with the lbe preference? >> i think so. so let's say the benefit is 5% for a benefit corporation, then it would be 15% if you are an lbe and it benefit corporation. if you are a benefit corporation where the war and you are not an lbe, you are at 5%. president o'brien: and that does not distort things for you?

you can work with that? >> maybe they should look into that. commissioner dwight: we are giving you the leeway to make it as low as 2% and as high as 6%. not to get out of control. this is -- i do not honestly think this is going to cause any company to move its headquarters to san francisco. i do think it will encourage local companies, lbe's, to adopt the b standard and to move towards it. i think it will encourage others outside of the area that they will be acknowledged for their goodness, but it is not like providing tax credits and things like that, which have an immediate financial benefit to a company, so i regard as more ads encouraging the movement and rewarding those, not to cause any change in where people are

located. i think we have established that by simplifying the proposal as stated. clerked -- clerk: and we have a second. president of brian -- o'brien: roll call. clerk: [reading roll] commissioners, and that passes 6 to 0. commissioners, you are now on item number five, general public comment. this would allow members of the public to, and generally on matters within the commission's purview and suggest new agenda items for the commission's future consideration. >> do we have anyone here who

would like to comment on some item not on the agenda this evening? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, before we move on to item number eight, supervisor common -- carmen chu has brought something, so i would like to distribute that to you. commissioner: you did the minutes provedcl -- you did the minutes? clerk: would you like me to read item number eight? item number 8, a discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors, which obligations. commissioners, inside your packets is an ada fact sheet that is provided by the sponsor.

the planning department memo which was provided to you previously that summarizes the planning department's decision on their limited scope, along with a full copy of the legislation, and as the director mentioned, there is the letter from supervisor carmen chu. >> good afternoon again. i am from supervisor david chiu's office. this is to a property owners. the supervisor has been working for years on this issue, ever since this service on the small business commission. this is in his district and throughout the whole city. we did some research through the office on small business on the number of ada lawsuits that have been happening, and since 2005,

there have been about 5000 lawsuits in california, and about 300 businesses have been sued, some of them several times, and some of them have had to close their doors because of the lawsuits. instead of spending money on lawsuits, that businesses and property owners should be spending this money on improvements to make their facilities more accessible to the public. so i will briefly summarize the legislative proposal, and the first is the city would be required to give priority to building permit applications for worked for small business tenants been brought into compliance with access laws. this is something i think the planning department has a policy to do, but this codifies for the city that practice. the second part is beginning in october of 2012, before a

commercial landlord signed a lease or minus an existing lease to a small business, they would be required to bring the ground for entrances and exits into compliance with pre-existing accessibility laws. what this does, it does not require anything new of property owners. it is something they should be doing anyway, and it recognizes that they should do this before entering into a lease where they know that the small business will be open to the public, and the reason we did this is because improvements to the threshold, to the door, they will last from business to business. the tenants change, but the doorway will not, and the property owner might have more of an ability to make these improvements than the small business. the third thing it does is

commercial landlords would be required to inform tenants that they may have ada requirements and also include in any new or amended leases a provision addressing their perspective ada requirements, so it is a lot about disclosure, letting small businesses know that this is an issue, because often small businesses do not realize their potential obligations until it is too late. the fourth thing is small, self- service restaurants and retail coffee stores would be allowed to exclude the square footage for disabled access in the allowable square footage, so it basically is not penalizing establishments for building ramps and other things to make the business more accessible. so since we introduced this legislation in i think it was september, we have continued to have conversations with many stakeholders, the mayor's office of disability.

one person was here earlier, but they had to leave. they have been great. we have been working with the regina a lot, and we have also had conversations, actually last week, with commercial landlords and realtors, and so we are getting a lot of feedback, some ideas that people have for potential changes, so we are very open, and we are looking at some of those and would like to hear your feedback. thanks. clerk: commissioners? commissioner dooley: this is great. thank you very much. i have been working on ada compliance issues since before i was on the commission. i just have some questions. is there going to be some kind of codified piece of information that will be required that the landlords give which will not necessarily be written by the landlord?

>> part of the conversations we have been having in the last week with the commercial landlord community, and that the city would draft some sort of disclosure statement that would be put in the les or made very visible and translated into different languages and something that the city gets to decide what the wording is and require that that be in all. commissioner dooley: that would mean that when someone is a prospective tenant, the landlord would not be able to say, "this is what is needed to be done to bring it up to code, but you will have to pay for it all." how does that work? >> right. i think there are often leased positions -- least -- lease provisions. we originally looked at

legislation that would short of sit -- shifted back to the landlord, but we were told by our city attorney's that that was not possible because of commercial rent control issues. so that is sort of why we did the notification portion and then did the approach to require improvements to be made before signing the lease. commissionerdooley: -- commissioner dooley: let's say there is something that is not complying, the landlord did not bring it up to date. will they be required -- well every commercial unit be required once this passes to bring it up -- technically, they are all supposed to bring it up to date, but will this make it more pressing for them, or how will that work?

>> the way it is written now, when that leases renewed is when the work should be done. we are open to -- we heard feedback that may be more appropriate that as opposed to add the lease signing having the work done, having a plan for having the work done, so that is an interesting idea that has recently come up, so as not to disrupt an existing small business tenants, said it will not have to close. commissioner: i think it is really great. clerk: commissioner o'brien? president o'brien: