your support. are there introductory remarks are questions? none. i believe that the commanders here from the police department and we have the small business commission. i would like to hear from the small business commission first and then from the police department. >> good morning, supervisors. small business commission. i will be very brief. the commission heard this item and enthusiastically supported both items before you. regarding the antique shops, there was some discussion -- the requested that staff work with the supervisor's office regarding concerns. however, we understand, working with the supervisor's office, that significant outreach has taken place and those concerns have been well taken into consideration. again, the commission strongly

supports this and urges your approval. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. colleagues, any questions? commander dudley from the police department -- excuse me, medudley. >> i am deputy chief of the administration bureau of the police department on behalf of chief suhr. in reference to the letter you talked about, it did mention several sections but excluded the sections that we have concern with. i will go into that if i may. supervisor wiener: are you referring to the letter -- >> that chief suhr agreed to peer -- agreed to. supervisor wiener: it talked about that specifically. >> i understand that. the devil is in the details. when reviewed by our city attorney representative and myself, as well as experts from the investigations bureau, the

chief at the same concerns. supervisor wiener: ok, but it was in that letter. i do not know if i misheard you. it had a full paragraph saying we would be proposing the repeal of that entire section and please let us know if you have concerns. >> right, and then we did the investigation. a little bit of background. currently, there are 275 registered secondhand dealers in san francisco, including two authorized resellers of firearms. the cost of doing the background investigation is about $277,000 the goes back to the general fund. we have no problem at all with the textbook-related sections of 850, 851, and 852. the concern is with 1276 through 1282. that would lift -- state law

will remain, but it is unclear who will do compliance checks and investigations. in a conflict with business and professions code 21-300. our concerns light in some of the biggest crimes, the property crimes in san francisco, and personal crimes relating to burglary and robbery. most stolen property is the items that are changing hands 317 dealers to a small electronics, jewelry, laptops, even high end clothing and antiques. we need the ability to check locations, check questionable merchandized, a frequent off the street dealers. i brought some anecdotal cases that were investigated and resulted in a pretty significant hauls of merchandise, sometimes through non-permitted dealers, sometimes through other businesses. one was through a beauty shop that was taking in gold. right now, due to the economy,

galt -- secondhand gold is a highly exchanged by them. i will just give you a case from 2010 that resulted in three arrests of individuals, and there were convictions for burglary and receiving stolen property. from the team at number station. the investigation revealed eight truckloads of property stored at a location at polk and california. there were 49 victims. the main suspect in the case had a second-hand dealer license to sell at the lme flea market. most of the burglaries and property recovered came from a house parties, stage homes, realistic, businesses, and construction. there were primarily high end clothing, new clothing that was a result, art, electronics, furniture, coins, and equipment.

we have had other similar cases. those sort of touched some of our concerns about the 1200 sections. supervisor wiener: chief, thank you for that synopsis'. my understanding would second handle this that anyone who deals with recycled metal has to bget a junk dealer permit. >> recycled metals, yes. as far as gold the could be considered jewelry, i am nyjer that section would apply. supervisor wiener: ok. what is the department's position? >> we would be happy to work with you on the details. it could have unintended consequences that could make san francisco a thriving area for unpermitted second in merchandise with no known origin. supervisor wiener: what is the

department proposing? i have to say this is frustrating, because my office has had multiple meetings with the department and communications from the chief down. so i would like to know what is the department's position in terms of what would have to change? >> we express these concerns to your aide a week ago, and these were the sentiments from the department. i checked in with the chief, and he asked me to reiterate these concerns. supervisor wiener: i think the concern that was expressed was about businesses that were getting cash over the counter -- in other words, somebody walks in and says here is a jacket, give me cash for it, as opposed to people who are purchasing items through the stream of commerce. that was my recollection. >> i am not sure what your question is. supervisor wiener: that was the concern -- that was a concern that the department had

expressed. but today, i am not hearing any kind of specific thing other than we have a concern about this and are willing to work with you. my question is, what is the department, in terms of what changes would have to happen, what is the department saying? >> the meeting we had last week, i interested the concerns to be in the fees. we're willing to work on the fees. we recently raised fees to give us some cost recovery relief. to lower the fees will not be a problem for us. in other financial impact on the city as a whole, but we're willing to work with you on that. we could sit down and hammer out the language so that some of the things that you mentioned earlier that every transaction has to be documented, that everybody is turned into the police on a daily basis -- we could work on a different

schedule where there is 30-day reporting more 60-day reporting. we feel the need to have a hand in the business. the state regulations would still be apply and there would still be requirements by the state and there would still be fingerprinting, documentation of who the merchants would be as well as high frequent exchanges of merchandise in these places. supervisor wiener: where you are suggesting is these merchants would have to have the name of everyone who purchases from them? >> it is my understanding that the state provision that would remain in effect. supervisor wiener: that's a different thing. a requirements from the state law would remain in effect. i am talking about our local ordinance which requires the

keeping of the logs. say i am a clothing seller whose not purchasing over the counter but whatever the distribution system is for vintage clothing and someone comes and buys jeans, i need to keep a log of the name in the description and the other items i read during the introduction. it would be reported, maybe not every day but less frequently. >> on a different time basis. supervisor wiener: ended the fingerprinting and a mug shot? >> i think it is a photograph, not a mug shot. as we read from the code and the regulations, that would still be required. supervisor wiener: you are advocating it remain a lot under local law as well? >> yes. supervisor wiener: thank you.

if there are no questions or comments, i would like to invite public comment. supervisor farrell: you mentioned firearms. can you explain to me what your thoughts are on that and how this would relate to it? i believe the genesis behind this legislation is to ease restrictions, onerous restrictions on small businesses that really don't need what seems to be onerous provisions of local ordinances which i fully agree with. but islanders and unintended consequences. can you talk about the firearms issue? >> i couldn't tell you the differences between the state, federal, and local law except that it's my understanding with second-hand dealers that second- hand firearms, it seems to talk

more about antique guns that may still fire. second handguns, that could be any other gun previously owned. there are only two in san francisco. supervisor wiener: article 9 requires a license to sell firearms. there is a separate licensing for firearms sales, is that right? >> i don't know the provision. supervisor wiener: but you brought up firearms specifically that this were repealed, it would open the field for people to sell firearms without a permit. but there is another permit for firearms dealers. >> yes. >supervisor wiener: so if we

repealed this, this would not become the wild west for firearms. >> i would not assume that. supervisor wiener: me we call public comment? supervisor farrell: if there are any members of the public who wish to comment, please line up on the side and everyone will have two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. iona the zonal home interiors which i have operated for 22 years, selling primitive country american furniture and industrial steel ranging from the late 1800's through 1945 with a mixture of custom upholstered furniture and locally created artists and works by artists using recycled and reclaimed ingredients. i was targeted by police audit

two years ago in july of 2010 and was shocked to received by a certified letter a demand to comply to a second-hand dealer permit for which i knew nothing about. i open my business in november 1990, went to city hall and asked for and complied with everything i needed to do to comply my business at, which i have that now successfully for 22 years. in 1997, i took a business partner and open the second business entity as a limited liability company, opening four other bay area locations which we have run for a number of years. in none of these past 22 years have the police and or any other entity other than for a second- hand dealer permit advise me this is something required to operate my business.

when i received this, it seemed very suspect that after having a business and operation for 22 years, paying all of my taxes etc., that i would be forced to comply with something i didn't know anything about and pay $1,500 in fees which in 2010, i was lucky to be able to pay my rent, let alone such a high fee. it seems like a very antiquated law that should -- [tone] i understand the need for regulations for firearms and electronics but very few of us sell that. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> i own an antique shops and art gallery in the western addition. i've been in business for four years, contributing to the vitality and commercial street

my business is located on. i'm open on the weekends and evenings, giving artists the opportunity to showcase their work. eyesores from all over the bay and the state, buy from dealers -- i source from all over the bay and the state. i am diligent that i purchase my items from good, reputable dealers. i have an active member of the corridor business association. i also barely pay my bills each month. this industry is a very difficult one, especially given the rising rents and costs of doing business in a very expensive city. paying $1,500 would be months worth of profit. there's no way i could ever document each and every sale with an identifying description of these customer. my customers would see this as an invasion of their privacy and i would lose business because of it. a reputable small business that

contributes to the economic vitality of san francisco. please treat people and people like me accordingly. i strongly support the repeal of this anti-business and unnecessary police code. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> it good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the owners of leftovers home consignment shop on van ness. we've been in business three years. i do understand the importance of making sure the people in this business are selling items that are surrendered by the actual owners of their property. i think it's realistic and understandable to have us fill out information you would require to make sure there are no sleazy people in this business. i think in regards to my shop, we only sell home furniture.

no one is going to steal a couch and try to halt it. we don't accept anyone who comes in off the street and wants cash instantly. everything is run through high- tech computer system. every tag has a price tag with a scanner code. all of our inventory is monitored by myself or the store manager who has been with us for three years. the items we sell are not things that anyone would want to steal. we also did not carry any electronics, cell phones, gold watches. we have a nominal amount of jewelry but it is clearly the owners who are moving who are trying to sell their items. it's not somebody who is shaky. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. and the co-owner of coal valley antiques. we have had our business for a half years. this permit came to my attention just a couple of years ago. my main point is we did everything we needed to do to open our business correctly what the right permits and to city hall and took every step we needed to open the business. we were never informed of a permit until i received a certified letter just a couple of years ago. i did not receive anything in this wave. i just received a certified letter that was fairly intimidating enough, telling me if i did not pay within 10 days and comply, i could be cited.

i'm a small business owner and mother of two young children. a single mother of two young children. , moved here 20 years ago and one of the things i fell in love with -- i moved here 20 years ago and one of the things i fell in love with was the geek shops. we're trying to contribute in that way. i also share the concerns for the ability to fence stolen goods, but there must be other ways to go about this rather than through these exorbitant fees in permits. the filing fee two years ago was $963 and then they want a couple of hundred dollars to have me fingerprinted. these are the types of fees that are going to put us under. we can barely stay in business

right now. we are trying to weather the storm of this economy. [tone] there must be other ways to circumnavigate the the question of stolen goods through the integrity of the store owners and other ways to go about it. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i own an arts and antique emporium on market street. i've been in business for 32 years in various locations. i was never made aware of this the but i have complied, so, for me it is a moot point. i've paid the fees a year-and-a- half ago when i received the threatening letters. i immediately complied and got fingerprinted and photographed. my issue is trying to comply with the actual ordnance. it is impossible. i sell hundreds of things per month. i sell mostly to dealers and

decorators. i still -- i sell to a steady line of regular clients and get people from all over the world. as everybody said already, it's a very difficult to do business as it is right now. the economy is not great and we do what we can to be as flexible as we can and stay in business. most people can't afford the fee. i can afford the fee, sort of, but the problem is complying with this law. it's virtually impossible. it's an imposition on my clients. i would hate to ask my customers to give me more information than is actually necessary that i would put on a receipt. it's almost treating them like criminals. i don't buy anything off the street. my sources are other antique stores, a flea markets, estate sales, auctions. other people buy things from the

restores, bye-bye from reputable deals -- reputable dealers. we are not pawnbrokers, we are an antique stores. pawnbrokers need something like this and for antique stores, it simply will not work. it is impossible. supervisor wiener: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i don't to stores in the castro. i have been in business since 2006 after a progression of a little shop on market. since i complied with all of the requirements for licenses and permits, i was never aware of this license. a couple of years ago was my first attention. they showed up at my store and some of our i was really surprised and the way they treated us for the requirement and other people, plants in the

store, i believe the license can be bought able to have but it's very expensive the first time i was required to pay. it was about $900 and then it went to $1,300 with all of the fees and all of these added up to 1900 dollars. i paid for one of my locations. the second one is still pending. i don't know what's coming to happen but i feel it's a very expensive license. my consignors our regular consignors. we have more than 500 right now and most of them are regular that come every six months and drop off merchandise. we have all of the information on them. i feel like this type of license is not for second-hand

clothing stores. i also don't agree with the treatment we got about getting a license. thank you. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. is there any other public comment? supervisor farrell: seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: i would like to thank everyone for coming out today. it's extremely hard to get small business owners to come out for public comment because they have it -- because they have to run their business and sometimes they're the only person there and it's a real pain to come to city hall and sit for couple of hours waiting for your two minutes. i've never been very successful at getting small business owners to come out. we were successful today because these sections are not pro-small business. these over broglie a lump in

many, many good, honest small- business owners and treat them as if they were running the worst kind of pawnshop basically. it's not just about fees. the fee is significant and onerous. it's also about the fingerprinting and having to go to the hall of justice and be photographed at as the one gentleman mentioned, having to keep a log. whether you are reporting every seven days or 30 days, you are still having to keep meticulous records of every single transaction, including a description of the person. it's unreasonable, it is not pro-small business and undermines our ability to keep a vibrant commercial corridor with these unique businesses. the police department has expressed some concerns, but i think many of them are covered by sections, including firearms permit, the junk dealer permit

and the pawnshop permit. it is not as if some of the businesses that may be more likely to have problems are not covered. they are already covered and this will allow us to support these critical eyebrow at small businesses instead of treating them as if they were criminals. colleagues, i request your support.

supervisor chiu: i would like to think supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. we do have a lot of regulations on the book that i think create needless confusion and process for folks who are just trying to get by and it's important to simplify and eliminate requirements where we need to. of that being said, we have certainly rick -- we've heard issues that have been raised by the san francisco police department. i would like to paint supervisor wiener's office and the police department and i would like to suggest we give it a little more time and asked the sponsor of the measure if we put this over

until the first week of september when we get back, and either leave it in committee or move it forward with our recommendation, i would like this legislation to get to a place i can support but it seems that there is a need for one last conversation on this. supervisor farrell: thank you for the small business owners to have come out. take a lot of people -- it takes a lot for people to take time out of the day. i pretty much echo the comments -- i want to support this from the small business perspective and there needs to be at least one more conversation here. but i would like to talk to their project sponsor. legislative sponsor.

supervisor wiener: i just want to say and i think it has come out during this hearing that i have a certain frustration level with the police department a around this issue, after being told by the chief we were good to go, there has been a series of different rationales for what is wrong with the legislation or what needs to be left in tact. the only specific thing i understood coming in today was the possibility of keeping the permitted place for businesses that accepted cash over the counter. you walked in with a leather jacket and they give me 50 bucks for best -- keeping the permit in place for that, but eliminating fees and a fingerprinting and daily record- keeping requirement and the other unreasonable aspects