falling down the hill. we need to study this and find a solution to it. okay. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors i'm ben. i work in the retail destroy representing local and natural retailers. i strongly urge the planning commission to hold-off on any action to present facts that's not based on opinions or protection itching of small businesses at the expense of the shows of neighborhoods and the residents of those neighborhoods. i noticed in supervisor breeze

comments she called us a retail economy and i think that's ironic that shows a lack of an understanding of what a retailer is. i think that formula retailer ownership is an incredible reach and it's going to be hard to verify the ownership stakes. it's why we have not seen this across the country. last planning commission san francisco was the largest city by a for about of 15 that has those types of restrictions rails one in connecticut that has 35 thousand people. i think that many of those proposals by the supervisors

need our reaction and they're based on un230u7b9d fear at the choice of the public. when we're talking about the community input it's important that it's not just the vocal neighborhood groups but you should hear from other folks in the community so it's truly a community voice. lastly if i don't like a retailer you don't shop there. if the business is in viable and people don't want to shop there the businesses won't exist. i strongly ask you to let planning do their job based on facts not special interests and you do not move forward with any of this legislation. thank you >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is erick i'm a resident of san francisco for the last 15 years. like the two who spoke before i'm in the real estate. not only here in san francisco but throughout the united states. i've been fortunate to work on wonderful streets that have fabrics. whether we deal with corporate guests or folks from other states they mafrl at the unique nature of santa fe san francisco. they shop local and national. i've been fortunate to lease all of fourth street and berkley you also know as a chain and also in downtown san - we have the

locals and we know the importance of the local chain stores. it's interesting because flt under the definition a gentleman which went from a local independent to a chain. i urge the counsel to look at this. there's a balance that comes with nationals and locals and international retailers because there are draws that local merchants can do that retailers or or national can't do.

and it seems shortsighted to make a rash decision relative to something that's got an impact not only on hayes valley but the general san francisco city. so i request you study this more thoroughly and i appreciate your time. thank you >> thank you. any additional public comment? public comment is closed. commissioner >> well, to the speakers who have spoken today, i think we've had good conversation. one speaker more than one speaker spoke about the choices that consumers make. if consumers don't buy it here they'll buy it somewhere else or

maybe online. the biggest threat is to online purchasing and nobody wins so far as i'm concerned we don't get the sale within san francisco or the employment behind the counter for san francisco or the tax revenue out of the sale. again, the sample there are people who know what that is but there are people who know and seek it and if we get too strict in banning making it so difficult for companies to come here they'll go somewhere else. so i think we have to be very careful and i and i thought the

speaker who thought we should study this. there's a place for formula retail done with the right sicken and that's one of the things i have against hayes. they have an out right ban. but in a neighborhood this has a ban already it makes it even more recycle active and if it were conditional use i would consider it and policy citywide that's nor 50u6r78 but i think the analysis should be done first. we're hearing how our local money should be kept here locally and i know there are many companies i've gone to and i found out that the owners of a

business only located in san francisco don't live in san francisco and don't employ people here so to generalize that local firms only are going to be better off is not the case. i think conditioning this would be the best if not it's a no vote for me and so i think that we'll see what the other commissioners have to say but i'm repetitive we have to have some policy that's more citywide and to penaltylize only the american companies but not the foreign companies make sense but but the second part is all kinds of ownership which companies have ties that exceed 50 percent is extremely burdensome thing

even if it's only on the particular sponsor it will be another reason they will try to relocate here from being two restrictive. those are my feelings >> i'm looking forward to the study and i know we have a lot of time i understand the supervisors wanting to move forward quickly. if you have foreign retailers it's important to expend it. there's more of a finer conversation to be had when we look at the larger issues citywide and i said the legislation out of fairness if

you argue about the costs and the burden of being a formula retailer and whether to relocate into a community or not. i know that when this legislation was competed though going back to the earlier conversation about aesthetics people didn't call it this but it was the wall greens and there's around the marketing signs and the awningings. there's two sides the issues there was the inflexible ability of having it on the street and the second thing about the competition and the impact on

the environment. that's where we need to have a better understanding that we don't we have an understanding about the physical impacts. for me it's a diverse range of issues. does that multiple the fact that they hire people locally or not. i also look at a place like target and i see a lot of people from the communities with jobs and i don't see the diverse workforce. i know there are impacts we need to look at with regards to diversity. we see a lot of people employed along hayes and i think we need

to get a better understanding. by in the context of this legislation i am going to support it because of the fact that's a fairness and equality issue. and i want to be supportive are on the second issue related to how do you determine ownership. i'm supportive of the affidavit having the structure but in the planning code we can't put that language but if someone is - i remember that at one point one company had a interest in mcdonald. 50 percent isn't a magic number

but to put something in the find a that specifics this is not part of the global but i think that's the place for it not in the planning code. i don't know that 50 is the right fun. i'm for the legislation including the global retailers because of the fairness issue and i'm supportive of something in the affidavit but not in the code >> commissioner. >> so i'm supportive also. i think we've already set the bar hierarchical for formula retailers for observe reasons the voters passed that initiative. this is defining the retailers more it make sense.

i think it should be defined citywide. those changes make sense to define it citywide. but i'm hoping that they can't recall being be considered citywide. i'm - we're putting a finer point on the division. i think we do the same thing for the changes of ownership in the assessors office so that's not complex. we can ask applicants whether or not they have 50 percent ownership that were so i'm for this and i'm asking the board to make this citywide and not just valley wide. so i'd move to recommended

approval of this ordinance or recommend that the board approve this and making it citywide >> the supervisors office is not - her position is she's not going to incorporate it but. >> that's included in the ordinance that supervisor mar introduced on tuesday so our approach will happen. i'm fine with this it depends upon the commission whether they are supportive it in the valley i'd be supportive it citywide >> can i ask staff to clarify the recommendation. so the recommendation is with approach to the recommendation of changing the stores to 11 worldwide and to eliminate it

completely or to law some portion of it or >> we're open to look at that. is 50 percent the the right number or do it now. but your primary remedies is to table this so we have a chance to do the study for release in october. if she wants to proceed we're okay. to do this worldwide. we're uncomfortable with the ownership structure requirement >> and if i could add it that. i think part of the reason we're uncomfortable with facing those

kind of ownership issues is the precedent. it seems to me this opens the door to all kinds of ownership structure like they sell things we don't like or we die like the owner. so where do you draw the line? those land issues have never been doing this on the ownership structure of the business >> so your recommendation to the planning commission is we approve by recommend that the supervisor hold on at least to the first part of the legislation. >> the first one is to ask her to table it. if she can't do that the community wants to ignored with it we have two recommended changes one that it be made citywide and two, that the

ownership structure be removed >> i prefer we wait. after the study. even in the public testimony we heard a lot of opinions what formula doesn't and does do for the community. the move to 11 worldwide make sense by you agree with director ram it's confusing where the line gets drawn you when our making decisions on not based on land use issues. and i echo some of the concerns. i stated some of those last week that some of the challenges we can electron about formula retailers. you want them to be part of the corridor and meets the needs of

the resident but we're seeing a very, very upscale commercial corridor. it may or may not have anything to do with formula retail but i think that the move towards this exclusive neighborhood store doesn't serve all san franciscans. >> if i may follow-up on those comments. you know, this whole thing is a balancing act and i hope that supervisor breed and other supervisors have a willingness to work together to come up with combined cohesive legislation and to depend upon the staff to look at citywide secludes. that doesn't mean they have to

be global wide but within the citywide i apologize for the words but butcher and chop but we owe it to ourselves to be patient and let the professionals study the problem and come up with some recommendations and hopefully, the supervisors will agree with those. you know, there are a couple of comments that really hit and specifically the situation where this was a homegrown business we're all proud of and the jazz success hats off to him. they pulled off the business strategy of going to a bigger company.

they're first plan remained true. they - i don't want to limit opportunity in san francisco where entrepreneurs want to start in a small bakery by are afraid because of the leveling number. there are some great retailers that are not in san francisco and i don't mean to to block off san francisco from bringing in a large or smaller retailer. i think the supervisors comments are right on. we have to make sure we're not choosing businesses. you may not like albertsons but you can't have it both ways and i'm going to support the continuance. i applaud the two items but i think it needs to be put into a

pot and ability with with other items >> yes. i have the same concerns as confirmation wu. i guess it's nice to have retail businesses local, you know, thrive and make money and profit and everything by then that's sort of ultimately results in the upperer fillmores and the hayes valleys of the world. in a lot of the ways for people who live in the neighborhoods it seems that this is something that north beach has complained about it's driven out other

stores where you can go and have neighborhood services. i'm practical downtown and i have neighborhood services but i can see a rapidly changing situations because there are four new restaurants that have opened on o open on my street alone. i have a question and if we're headed on track for citywide - potential citywide legislation that would be applied citywide would - the question to me is at that point would the - and this is i guess a sproirl question if that legislation is drafted is it intended to super seed all

the neighborhood commercial formula regulations as they currently exist? >> i think. >> it's provisional not answerable like in north beach where they have bans where this citywide formula is not going to - would it super keyed it we're talking about two things despite of hayes valley. obviously supervisor breed believes we're saying that supervisor mar has put forth legislation that includes those but does it mean that his legislation or whatever form of legislation takes is going to

super keetd what the supervisor it proposing >> it's pretty early in the process but he think it's probably appropriate to have the structural controls consistent across the city whether the definition of formula is the same. so there could be some needs tayloring after the area. there's formula restaurants have no more strict rules in formula so it tayloring is appropriate >> just one loose thing. on the ownership factor coming in to it. a lot of times we have conditional permits coming before us we like the use but we're not sure if that ownership

went away that the use would still, you know, be 13w50ish8 e desirable so the speak. to you want to say that the sea only runs with the ownership and not the land. that is quite the same as here but it does raise an issue it's not quite as clear for me. i understand the concerns to protect something fragile and new, however, i believe this is the responsibility of this commission and of the planning department to always look at larger citywide policies rather than just responder to spot zoning to one particular request and give the store away. i think to give the changes

redefine the changes and the definition the study should be completed. i know this commission has been very much tuned introspective neighborhoods and their concerns and a beyond the scope that the study being done that concern or that particular curing of this commission will go away. we'll have better guidance and i am concerned we would citywide have a restriction on international companies, the city wouldn't be a worldwide city like their designer stores. that doesn't mean we can give neighborhood voices which come from a particular concern and are brought to this commission the exact fine tuned attention

which neighborhoods can start to determine their own dicey by to have some protectionism outside the city for the definition i'm not comfortable with that. there's one comment i'd like to contradict did towards one individual who spoke about hypocrisy i'd appreciate that if someone who doesn't agree with her attempt you should do it to her face >> commissioner. >> i think ownership does

matter. we've approved pete's but denied starbuck's. they going both sell coffee and we approve one and disapprove the other. i don't meanwhile agree with the ban in hayes valley it gives people a voice but we're not not that i recall talking about that. we're talking about the definition of retail and what if you have leveling in the united states or worldwide. i think it make sense t expand

it worldwide. i don't think that the definition is going to shed any light whether or not we should go one way or the other. we've seen an example in hayes valley we've got stores coming in it is a formula retailer because it has more than 11 stores but i don't see the change for the 50 percent rule mcdonald's can open up a version of a store and i and call it someone else. they would get around the retailer formula. those are tweaks to the definition and not things we're going to address in the study. i'm skeptical of the