of a little bit over powering to me. the initial reaction that we could possibly get the same desires and results and that combination of more enforcement and you know, a strong application of the cu process. >> yes, so as i mentioned, the article was not to diminish the night life on the polk street corridor. we feel like the vibrantcy is important to the residents and obviously to the existing businesses that are already there and we want to make sure that we are protected and like i said we are very open to working with the planning department and exploring what an appropriate density control alternative would be. and looking at whether that is 100, or 200 square feet and what that would mean for the

neighborhood. >> okay. any other commissioner comments before we open it up to public comment? okay, let's have public comment on item number 6. is there anybody who would like to make public comment? on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? >> i also think that the proximity limit is going to be just as useful as the total ban. i sympathize in terms of, we need to, you know, think about daytime use, and that balance, and if there is an overwhelming amount of night-time businesses only. we do need to have a balance that helps keep it lively during the daytime also.

also, in terms of cus, you know, let's face it, we just don't have any enforcement. you know, we are just under budgeted and we just don't have it. so, i would agree with my other commissioners that a proximity ban would be appropriate and a less let's droconian and would i think, achieve that balance. >> commissioner riley? >> yes, i agree. and i think that the objective is to make sure that we provide the opportunity for other businesses coming in to the proximity controls would be able to accomplish that. once you pass the ban, i assume that it would take a long time and a lot of process in order to lift the ban. is that right? >> i also heard the legislative aid right there that they are willing to go back and also

talk to the planning department again, right? >> so, i am just wondering if we could, get commissioner riley could help us, to formulate a recommendation to explore further what the planning commission and something that might be a little bit version of light and what they are suggesting on using the control that he just mentioned. >> yeah, i like that. >> if i could go along with that. let's see what chris has. >> may i, so, staff has provided you with some maps in your binders. >> great. >> and with a proximity map, taking a look at 100-foot buffer, 150-foot buffer and

300-foot buffer. there are several ways to go about this, either say that we are going to our recommendation is to work with the proximity and not make a recommendation on the amount, you could say, we recommend a certain amount of proximity or not-to-exceed a proximity buffer, there are certain ways that you can go about this to provide the supervisor with direction and as clear of a direction as you think is necessary in relationship from the small business perspective for this. piece of legislation. so i don't know if that is a discussion that the commission wants to have in terms of the specifics in that. >> in particular, also, they are not-to-exceed distance that you would like to recommend in terms of proximity. because you notice that some of them will serve as a ban, for instance, whereas others are less onnerous any guidance that the staff can receive to

articulate your position to the planning commission and the legislative sponsor. >> looking at a map, are you done? >> i am done. >> looking at the map, i see that with the 300-feet, it is not going to provide any opportunity of any new bar or restaurant. so, i would recommend proximity be 100 to 150 feet and not-to-exceed 200. >> i agree. i agree with that. >> do we want to make a motion on this? >> yes. >> i am sorry, did you, so, commissioner rilely has put it out there that make a recommendation not-to-exceed 200. >> be careful because 200 is going to do almost effectively

what 300 does. >> 150. >> 100 to 150. >> 150 looks all right. >> yeah. >> 150 is kind of in the middle. >> yeah. >> it will be 100 not-to-exceed 150. >> okay. >> i move that we make a recommendation on this legislation and the polk street rud, that the sponsors look at proximity controls rather than an out right ban in the area. we also recommend that the proximity be in the 100 to 150-foot range, not-to-exceed 150 feet. >> i second. >> roll call? >> do you have a question? chris? >> i just wanted one of the discussions that we had in the policy committee is whether

there will be a sunset clause? and i don't know if you wanted to have any discussion on that? or any of the items that we discussed in the committee before moving forward? >> staff just wants to make sure to have the commission's position fully articulated. >> i think that three to five years sunset provision would be reasonable. >> let's add that to the motion that we recommend a three to five year sunset provision. >> yes. >> and that the board of supervisors may extend this legislation for longer than 3 to 5 years by ordinance. >> okay and then another discussion that we had had to do with entertainment conditional use for entertainment. do you want to provide the staff with any direction on that? >> i think that there should have cus for full entertainment license but not for limited live. >> right.

>> and then my last question for commissioners, is regarding there are two more questions that i have for staff direction. would be on restaurant type 47 licenses, and then also if you would like to grandfather in the businesses that have already applied for alcohol licenses. >> to be clear, are you stating you have applied but have not opened? >> have applied but not received final sign-off. >> do we know how many? >> sign-off from the planning... >> in terms of they don't have a completed, it has not been fully approved by the abc and there is one that i know of on geary street. >> i think that would be fair to say that we would grandfather in. >> we would grandfather in any pending applications.

>> i support the restaurant 12 am provision personally, but i don't necessarily feel like we have to put that in our motion for restaurants that have full bars >> right. >> do you want to add that or do you want to leave that out? >> it is the way that it is already. >> yes. >> and i just wanted to be fully clear that when we write the response to the department and to the board that we can fully articulate what you have. and i think that i have the guidance that we need. i feel like we can. >> do you want to read it back? >> commissioners regarding supervisor board two, 121065, planning code, zoning map, district we would recommend the proximity control as outlined in the discussion of 100-foot preference not-to-exceed 150 feet. commission recommends a three

to five year sunset provision at which time the board of supervisors could extend the permit and the restricted use district. it supports conditional use for entertainment but supports not having any restrictions on limited live performance and the commission would like language to grandfather pending applications. and i have a motion by commissioner dooley, i did not note a second. >> i second. >> so i have a second by commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> would you like a roll call? >> commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley? >> yes. >> commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> commissioner o'brien? >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> commissioner white. >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. that passes 7-0. >> thank you. >> next item.

>> commissioners you are now on item number 7. discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 21211, administrative code resending sunset on the san francisco bonding and financial assistance and we have a presentation by matt hansen, the city of administrators. >> welcome, matt hansen. >> thank you. >> glad to be here. it is up here going for you. just a second. >> if all also fails, we have printed copies.

>> >> there we go. >> apologies for the technical difficulties. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners and thank you for hearing this. our presentation on this item in your interest in the

legislation. my name is matt hansen and i am the director of the risk management division of the city administrator's office and i would like to talk with you tonight about the proposed legislation but also give you some history on the city and county of san francisco surty bond and finance program that has been in effect for quite some years and we will go through the history and the goals of the program and talk a little bit about the structure of the program. and then, an overview of the pending legislation, and then the operational effects of the pending legislation for your consideration. >> so the program formally established in 1997, but in draft and pilot form, prior to that, was designed to help small firms vying for city contracts and to level the playing field for smaller to be able to get bonding assistance to bid on construction contracts.

and effectively, what it does is it takes a lot of factors into consideration, but under the 14.d ordinance it specifically targets the local business enterprise contractors so the lbes in san francisco with the parameters around that and they have to have done business in san francisco and been domiciled here for 6 months and a few other parameters around the participation in the program. >> the program is monitored and administered by a third party administrator and currently they over see the out reach alongside with the human rights commission for the program, out reach into the community, getting the folks aware that it exists and that it is available to contractors locally. in 2008, the program received a bit of a change, and it was for the better, and it was to operationalize what had been a

long-standing problem for the program and that is, that the city puts up a matching amount of money for the surty to back it with a letter of credit with a bank agreement. and as part of the project, the individual project bidding, the contractors sometimes could not take advantage of the program, because the project was already at capacity. they did not have the money to put aside for the actual backing the city's piece of doing the program. and so, we worked with the hrc, the controller's office and the city attorney's office and we came up with a solution to create a self-insurance fund and we did that primarily to take away the other barrier of the projects that were in the late stage and did not have much money for the contractors to take advantage of the program. so that has been in place since 2008 and also increased the letter of credit facility agreement to 5 million to provide more program capacity, which seemed to be working very

well. so the program structure, how does it work? we have contractors, that come in with requests for utilization of the program. they are then assisted with any number of things, if they don't have an insurance broker, the program administrator will help them find one that they can utilize, if they don't have certified financials their incentives to assist them getting in touch with qualified cpa and getting their financials in order and there is a city match of up to 3200 dollars to get those certified financials done there are also various monitors along the way. so, that we make sure that we are not leaving them out there on their own. we have the funds control administrator that helps them make sure that their suppliers and subcontractors get paid as well as other services that the administrator provides along the way.

so the current legislation, is to do two things. in the late summer and early fall of 2012, the function was transferred for the over site of this program from the human rights commission to the city administrator's office. along with the contract monitoring division of which this could be a subset, since they over see all of the lbes in the city. and so as a result of that transfer function, we wanted to do some technical clean up to the 14 b legislation basically codifying the responses and where the authorities lie. and the second thing and this is the one that is the time sensitive issue that we are trying to deal with earlier than has been done in the past. is to remove the sunset data on the program, and every so often, when we get to the point of getting close to the sunset date, we have a misalignment of agreements and of dates within

the program. because we can only issue a letter of credit for as long as the program is authorized. and so the letter of credit, every time there is a sunset date has to be renegotiated which causes cost at the program level. at the individual contract level, with the contractors, they cannot, we cannot again, issue letters of credit beyond the date of the program and therefore, everything backs up and we wind up having to redo the letters of credit at cost over time. because those dates don't neatly align. we could be having a construction project that we know will be in 6 months but the program does not extend beyond 6 months, so we can't write the letter of credit. we have to write a short term and do the fix and write another one and which incurs the cost. that is what we are effectively trying to do. we are very certain that the

board of supervisors retains their control over the review of the program because there is an annual certification through the budget process. and to the appropriation process, and we are going to hopefully by doing this earlier rather than later, realize some operational and administrative costs not only for ourselves but for contractors and program users. so with that, i will take some questions. but i wanted to tell you a couple of other things that will be coming down the line for the program. we would really like to get away from using a letter of credit. because it costs money, number one and it is duplicative to the money in the self-insurance fund and it will help to stream line the process for not only the city, the administrator and the contractors. and so we are looking at alternatives to the letter of credit of being able to issue some form of collateral that is

effective to the surty companies to keep the program going in a stream lined fashion. we are going to continue to review the processes for efficiency and effectiveness. there will be further 14 d clean upcoming up down the line and we will be using that process to make additional recommendations to the program efficiencies. in this current legislation, we just wanted to make sure that deal with what we consider to be some what of a no brainer, in that it does, it has a very immediate impact with without a whole lot of down side. and essentially. and then, we are also going to take a look at options to increase the types of contracts that are allowed to participate in the program, we are also partnering with mta to make sure that we can use federal moneys, through this program, and that their subcontractors can have access to a surty bond program as well. so with that i will take your questions.

>> commissioner comments? >> commissioner ortiz? >> this has helped many, many small businesses get to the next level. they will be using this program. i am excited to hear that you might expand to the professional services because there are a lot of rfps in the city and with the artificial barriers regarding the laws and we hope to see development with that. >> commissioner o'brien? >> yes, just a comment on one of the things that i discovered from the system. it would be great to ensure a response to a contractor if they will be get the bond or not as early as possible. because really the first thing that he really has to know do i have a bond or not? because that is the difference between am i going to take on the job or not? and the minute that he makes a decision that he is taking on

the job he has to start spending money right away. >> correct. >> and it is unfortunate if a contractor starts spending money, only to find out later, that he is not going to get the bond, that is kind of a killer for a small business with their cash flow needs, so just one comment that i put there. >> totally understand that. and that is one of the main reasons why we created the self-insurance plan was to be able to immediately guarantee that there were funds available to even go out and look for a bond and then also, the timeliness of the response not only the program administrator but my city colleagues who have to sign-off on approvals of each transaction that goes through. we are looking hard at the step on the process and time out where we can and make it more efficient and condensed. >> and i like this and i got to agree that what the commissioner ortiz said and it

helps a lot of people out, and it is a very good program, and i want to thank you for, you know, pushing this out there. and just kind of stream lining it. so i really appreciate that. with that said, do we have public comment on item number 7? >> commissioner riley? >> sorry. >> that is okay. >> yeah. >> how often do you have to renegotiate with the sunset period? >> well that it is really an option of the board. they have the authority to set a period that they choose and what i have seen historically for the program, and again this is my first six months or so really dealing with this, the nuts and bolts of the program and was every couple of years. and it kept rolling forward every couple of years and this last one was a four, five and a half year extension.

but, even so, as we get within a year or a year and a half and even a year and three quarters. we have to thinking about renegotiating all of the agreements. because we are starting to put projects into the pipeline that could bump up against the date and then would also hit the letter of credit because that is a different date. that is a transactional date based on what the bank will agree to and now we have to go back and renegotiate with the bank to extend the letter of credit should this be successful >> and this just lifts the sunshine? >> yes, it does. >> that will stream line your process and save you a lot of time and money. >> it will. >> great. since 1977, or 97? >> 1997, do you have any... >> one, that was not the contractor's issue, it was an

issue that came up within, it was i believe, i want to say, in the early 2000s and it was a situation in which a project and other folks decided to let it happen and he learned a lesson. >> one case is not bad. >> that is why the program administrator stays very close to the projects that we write bonds for. so that we can make sure that support the contractors every step of the way. >> thank you. >> any other commissioner comments. >> okay, do we have public comment on item number 7? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? do we have a motion to approve item number 7? >> yes. i would... >> commissioner riley? >> i am going to move, just wanted to let you know that we heard this at the commission committee meeting. and we recommend approval.

>> second. >> roll call, please? >> commissioners, i have a motion by commissioner yee riley, recommending approval to the board of supervisors, file 121211. in the san francisco bonding and financial assistance program i have a second from commissioner dooley. >> on the roll call, commissioner adams in >> yes. >> dooley. >> yes. >> dwight. >> yes. >> o'brien in >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena in >> yes. white in >> yee riley in >> yes, >> commissioners that passes 7-0. >> great, thank you very much. >> next item.

>> next item three. >> they renumbered, i forgolt. >> commissioners. item 8, presentation and discussion on mobile retail by christian murdock, office of small business and this is a discussion item only. >> while christian is getting set up. i just wanted to provide you with an update in terms of the work that we are doing with the office around mobile retail and research, while we are not at the place to make a specific recommendations we are getting close but i want to give you an update and get your feedback and let you know what has been involved and taking a look at developing some policy and permitting guidelines around what we are calling mobile retail and probably more non-mobile food business. >> and welcome. >> thank you, good to be here, good evening, mr. president, and honoral commissioners and as the director said i am here to give you an overview of what the office has been doing in the area of what has ex-spended

from mobile retail to the end serve use category. >> so what we are trying to do is develop a new city-wide program to permit retail sales and services from and within the motor vehicles on city streets. this stemed from an increasing number of requests asking for permits, people would come into the small business assistance center and i want to open a truck that sells wigets and we will say sorry you can't sell on the street, what do you mean that people are selling food out of trucks and why can't i do that? we have to tell them that they have a specific process in permitting what you can go through for that and no such process exists i can't help you, think of a different business, not exactly. but that is where things stand currently. some people are doing that, without a permit. but these folks are trying to do the right thing and come in and get their business, vetted

and regulated so they can get up and running. >> so, as you probably know from your personal experience, the mobile concept is sort of emerging in a lot of different areas related to small business and service and retail. luckily, for mobile retail, the presence on san francisco streets right now is minimal. you know? it is not as pervasive as mobile food has become. but there is growing interest. we think that it is good that there is interest but it is not widespread because it gives you a chance to get ahead as a city and develop regulation and prepare a proper response whatever that might be as we work through the process. these groups are not just a rag tag bunch they are organizing, the west coast mobile retail association is the main group that we are aware of. they have members from seattle down to san diego and everywhere in between. so, you may be wondering at