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 to 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 formula because it depends upon the neighborhood between the pizza and the starbuck's. i'd recommended the board supports this legislation >> it that a motion?

>> i'd say a friendly amendment in the second ownership thing. the approach would be in the affidavit and the 15 to explore the other language. yeah. we were - we rely on people who fill out an explanation they'll tell us whether or not they're a formula retailer and we look at the formula definition. i'm supportive of that >> the staff is concerned about the code that would say that. and this would be making that. i know how the code actual what the code says >> emry rogers the proposal

from supervisor breed doesn't say making anything about an affidavit that's one idea we have. >> how to implement it. >> yeah. on page 7 of her draft ordinance where it talks about the 50 percent ownership structure. >> and again, i put this separately than what's in hayes valley a ban the retail. i think when the city come down we'll look at whether or not the ban is acceptable. there's an issue ever of a grocery store people in hayes valley may want it and there maybe a ban that stops them from getting it >> i agree that the process currently works and that's why

i'm not going to support this. i think we already have something in place and as i pointed out it we've supported some things and denied other things. while its in the perfect we have a check and balance system now. but - >> i think the example of granite i think if starbuck's fought a company h that has less than 11 without going through this process they should. >> was there a clarification? >> i want to say one point. thank you for sticking up for my boss. i want to make a practical point. supervisor farrell has

introduced this and supervisor mar is introducing an ordinance to do it citywide. it is probably the direction the board of supervisors wants to go and i'd like say to the commissioners that the board is now going on break and i have 6 or 7 weeks before this comes to the land committee and during that time we can figure out the best practices for how to do this. supervisor breed is flexible and she's willing it work with the staff whether it be an affidavit it seems like this the the direction and i say that moving this forward we have a lot of time and we can devote a lot of

time for the procedures. so i say to the commissioners we may be better served in the end taking by laughing this to moved in the refinement process which the supervisor breed is going to do. i second it. our primary recommendation to hold off and the definition i definition should be citywide. but i mean, if you're going to - i think connor is right that's likely the direction our going and i do have serious issues about the ownership but that's why our remedies is split if you

go ahead you make the definition citywide. i understand your point of view we disagree on that particular point >> i'm going to move to continue this item with the idea of being until wife had the opportunity to formulate our policy on formula retail and a at a point we can see if it's consistent with that policy. >> scum through the chair. our time is up for reviewing this so unless the supervisor allows this to be continued >> it's either a continuance or no for me and just letting you know. >> i have a quick could we ask for a working group that's

supervisor mar and supervisor breed etc., to get this off so we have the intelligence and the for about of everybody who is interested in that. and i think we sloufl will be working with supervisor breed and what we've heard in the past on this issue she's going to move forward and she's seeking our commitment and i think they intend to move forward regardless of the recommendation >> here we go again. >> commissioner. >> yes to that point i think it mapgs to say how the legislation b will go because our time on the clock it up. so if people want specific language, you know, on the table about the 50 percent ownership

it's unlike a person from our staff is open to that and we can make the recommendations to our planning staff on whether or not you want to call it. but there's a lot of people who have said it's hayes valley it's not an out right ban so the change of the retailer fairness issue in my point of view united nations because of the ban and the mayors currently dealing with that. the second issue we can make recommendations that souls the supervisors office is looking at that. it make sense to not take steps today >> there's a motion and a

second on the floor and the motion that never received a second. >> i'm going to second that the continuance and i want to be clear. i'm not an all out formula later person but i think this needs some further discussion and thought. this is the way it's going. commissioner mar and i just want to do my second we're echoing each other and to be clear the continuance means that we never hear this item again? never, ever. but this legislation does not come back to this legislation >>right. >> and if there's no action from the planning commission it's a recommendation to the board of supervisors lack of action is the recommendation of approval they can still take

whatever action they want. >> it's very imperfect. the commission would like the study to be done but that's not on option in front of us. i'm comfortable with the staff remedies rather than the motion but i think in someways we're splitting hairs. the discussion today has provided a lot of discussion for supervisor breeds office and the intent of the office has come out in this discussion >> i'm sort of with the confirmation on one comment i don't know given the direction the board is moving anyway i don't know what is going to be accomplished by waiting for the study e.r. even doing it. >> so try what the study says it so, you know, formula retail

stores and whatever neighborhoods may upset the real estate market by 5 percent or 1 percent of whatever. it's only case studies. and i really, you know, if they're going to move ahead with the definition of whether or not there are international stores ever not that's not going to answer the call and the study is more than that it's about a whole range of issues the real estate the rental, the employment >> i have no faith it's going to effect the direction of the legislation. and i have another question >> well, you know, and you hope it would. >> yeah. i don't think it

will. there was an issue bracket forgot in the hayes valley district about the grocery stores. if there's a complete ban it doesn't matter for this legislation but it's not universally accepted and especially raising the issues by other people in the neighborhood was rather disconcerting i guess. and thirdly the formula retail has no ability to effect even a local business that sells international or national good days. theory not going n that direction are we? i just purchased something on hayes street but it was an brrl brand and they having had more than one type of clothing brand

who's name will be unmentioned at the moment but that store also carried other branded names and so somebody's looking for something they, go to local stores and find that >> that's bad if we start recycling what people sell. >> i want to add in expansion of the case studies. those are comparing other cities what they do and relative to store front size. that's not a question of banning the stores by getting realistic perimeters and hanging on specific neighborhoods and push back with choices in the city. however, it's