public comment, please come forward thank you committee members for convening this meeting he know with the site of elevators it's a very seer health issue and seer problem for many, many residents that s r os particularly seniors that can't afford market rate apartment in san francisco. it has become a bulk or a great number or a large amount of the housing sthok available hours that is available to seniors and people that disabled. now, it's been said in the shire that was read about the heartland hotel about a woman that lives on the significant

floor we've heard stories of people that are strarntd in their s r o people that are strarntd for weeks and literally being carried up and down the stared i'm anable body person i know that going up 6 flights of stairs for me a hall i get winded but can you imagine for people that mobility issues. we've heard from the representatives from the owners that apparently says that the owners are on board we've heard from the dbi and the department of public health of the various issues and the different issues that each agency faces. i'll ask this committee to work with those bodies and you can much of this has to do with financing and low cost loans that gives the initiative but

the initiative would be to improve the quality of life of people that are living in s r os that are paying a majority of their fund in rent >> thank you. i'm larry i want to show you a certificate on may hopefully, people will read the essential it's talks about the nonprofits how some of the s rorss are nonprofit but in 89 i got a thing on my angle i have a disability and walking up and down those stairs is terrible if you don't have an elevator this is even more harmful for us

inform this is an occasion the 3 items it's pride month we need to make sure that s r o housing is humanity we're building up high-rise all over san francisco but people in the s r o are left out that's housing that i really wish our president would do something with hud is there a reason that the barriers its elevating us harassment and bullyinging we're the new immigrants that no one dealings deals with immigrants in this city it's time we really have more coming out and dealing with the s r o tenants they won't come here. but have the elevator moments to get things on the table.

thank you >> is there any additional public comment? okay seeing none, public comment is closed supervisor kim >> thank you. i'll just make a couple of concluding remarks i appreciate all our tenants and advocates for come on here actually upper the ones that highlighted the issue and bring it to the forefront. i know this is something that's been going on for years we we hear about from individual residents it's frustrating and i want to appreciate our departments dbi and the dph and the mayor's office of the sdaths. i think it's clear from this meeting? a complicated issue unlike public housing we had jurisdiction and the authority

to replace the elevators with this it's more mud he would we're not the owners but we contract up to one hundred percent of those buildings and use city funds to keep those buildings affordable for resident we place into housing. so i think there are a couple of layers that should make the city interested in finding solutions for this complicated issues. so looking forward to the recommendations is from dbi. and second interested in working with dbi to establish a financial vehicle for more thantion whether a loan or urging the master lease to have the owners pay the city back over time for the elevator replacements that's clearly needed now and second i'm interested in utilizing the feasibility studies that's

something that came up from owners s r o hotel owners we've heard even though they know the elevator needs to be fixed they're not sure what the best way to do that so helping with the feasibility they'll, the costs and how they'll partner with the city would be something that's extremely helpful and finally with both dph and i know s h h is not here. working on including a provision in the future master leases around the owners establishing and funding a capital respectfully yours, reserve so in the future they have the capacity to deal with modernization and maintenance and something around maintenance at the time noted enforceable through dbi but enforceable through the contract itself. and looking at ways we can partner with this way with

private property owners we need to credit incentives and carrots both in place the sticks through the master lease and carrots through a financial vehicle or feasibility study etc. so really looking forward to working with the department and advocates and tenants to make sure we find the real solutions we know it impacts the life and safety of our residents >> thank you supervisor kim and keeping us - this issue front and center. colleagues would you like to file this or continue with the to the call of the chair >> we'll take that without objection. >> madam clerk we'll go back to item one do we need to recall that. >> i'll recall it item one is an ordinance amending the planning code for the calculations of the code.

>> okay. so colleagues we've had a chance to consultant with the city attorney to get clarity around the language so just to provide clarity we're basically, what the legislation does it if the demonstration is at least 20 percent then there's had a control and it's in the areas of the city where the density is limit by lot and size there's two types of projects there's our projects that have some sort of tax credit or tax exemption bond financing and projects that are simply private developments that comply with the inclusionary housing organized. thomas a. swift's electric rifle as it's written any project that has public money in it one of the various forms then the sky is the limit in terms of how the

stake is up to 50 percent they can have the 50 percent count against the density limits for projects that are purely private projects inclusionary it was drafted to say that up to 20 percent and we've been informed up to 25 percent and rational being we want to make sure it's permanently enforceable in our nexus study goes up to 25 percent so that's why it was drafted that way so the goal to get people up to 25 percent and whether or not there's funding then the legislation will allow you to go up to 25 percent and take advantage of the bonus or money to go higher. that's the clarification we've

received. i'll propose an amendment on page 4 i believe lines 68 and 9 where it says 20 percent to change that to 25 percent per the nexus study and the second reference on page 9 we need to add in the words up to 25 percent. so on page 4 line of it will read up to a maximum of 25 percent and on page 9 excuse me. line 9 it will read and committing to up to 25 percent on site units. so those are the two amendments understand those are not substantive amendments >> you can make those amendments and pass it up. >> thank you, mr. gibner and knowles thank you supervisor kim for raising that question. >> you can't can i ask a

question. thanks for all the work and clarifying that question i want to make sure with the city attorney i've heard earlier so for any units that are excluded we'll be able to insure long term fablts >> that's correct. one of the things when we talk about our citywide goals the real big projects are the subject of demonstrate agreements and under state law you can negotiate look over of different things that are not part of this legislation but negotiated developments >> thank you for your work. >> thank you, supervisor. >> so could i have - i mean, i'll make a motion to adapt the amendments as described. can we take that without objection? we'll take that without objection. a adapted can i have

a motion to forward item one to the full board with positive recommendations >> so moved. >> without objection colleagues, i appreciate it. >> no further comments. >> we had public comment on the item before we went to the s r o hearing. >> we took 3 out of order it's been continued to july 31st so on july 21st we'll have the full hearing on the tom on the other hand, dell hearing. >> i know that's a great man and a great clinic. >> supervisor cowen. >> i'll add my name. >> supervisor kim and supervisor cowen have asked to be added as co-sponsors to item one. >> madam clerk, any other business before this commission? >> okay. then we're at 6294

together we can support your children. it's been my dream to start is a valley school since i was a little girl. i'm having a lot of fun with it (clapping) the biggest thing we really want the kids to have fun. a lot of times parents say that valley schools have a lot of problems but we want them to

follow directions but we want them to have a wonderful time and be an affordable time so the kids will go to school here. we hold the classes to no longer 12 and there's 23 teachers. i go around and i watch each class and there's certain children i watched from babies and it's exciting to see them after today. the children learn how to follow directions and it ends up helping them in their regular schooling. they get self-confidents and today, we had a residual and a

lot of time go on stage and i hope they get the bug and want to dance for the rest of their >> good afternoon and welcome to the san francisco small business commission's regular meeting of monday, june 23, 2014. the meeting is called to order at 2:07 p.m. we will conduct a roll call. commissioner adams? >> here. >> commissioner 2019 dwight? >> here. >> [speaker not understood]? >> here. >> commissioner white? >> you have a quorum with 5 commissioners present. commissioners dooley and cartagena are absent. >> public comment? >> public comment and all public comment periods during the meeting is limited to three

minutes per speaker unless otherwise established by the presiding officer. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. speaker cards while tionval will help spell names in the written meeting. please deliver cards to me prior to approaching the lecturn. >> do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on anything that is not part of today's meeting? >> seeing none next item, please. >> approval of minutes from the meeting of january 13, 2014, action item. >> we have a motion to approve. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? motion passes. next item. >> that takes us to item 4, approval of minutes from the meeting of january 27, 2014. action item. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> passes 5 in favor none

opposed. that brings us to item number 5, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the small business commission on board of supervisors file no. 140643. this is a discussion and possible action item and we have with us nick pavalotis, staff aide to supervisor eric mar. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, thank you for getting my name right. [speaker not understood] on behalf of eric mar. thank you for the opportunity to present our proposed legislation. first i'd like to begin by thanking planning staff in particular [speaker not understood] for their incredible work in putting -- in bringing together the consultants from strategic economics to create the recent comprehensive study of formula retail in san francisco. we believe the study was long overdue and it does give us a detail and very well informed look at how formula retail

functions in our city. on on june 9th this commission reviewed the planning proposal for existing controls and decided to recommend those proposed changes. our proposal agrees with the overall framing of the issues by ms. rogers. at that hearing, we, too, believe our existing controls are working in the way they were intended to work and that we do not need a radical overhaul, but rather some thoughtful tinkering in order to update them to reflect our revolving neighborhood context. supervisor mar is committed to giving our neighborhood residents a strong voice in the economic development of our neighborhood commercial corridors and do leveling the playing field for those local independent small businesses that are the backbone of our economy and provide much of the character and unique charm of our various neighborhoods. the legislation that you see before you comes from meetings with community residents in small business owners, and also

from an ongoing dialogue with the planning department. i think it would be helpful in order to frame this conversation to start by quoting some of the more telling findings that are found in the formula retail study that i just mentioned. at page 3, "some small independent businesses have struggled to keep up with rising rents even as the city's economic growth has attracted new national brands and allowed other independent retailer to expand." at page 8, "the formula retail conditional use authorization process allows the planning commission to exercise discretion and respond to case by case concerns raised by community members. the majority of formula retail conditional use applications have been approved. however, in cases where community members have reached a clear consensus that a proposed formula retailer is not desirable and appeared at planning commission hearings, cu authorizations have been denied or withdrawn.

at page 7, "formula retailers willingness to go through the formula retail conditional use application process depends on conditions in specific districts. formula retailers are more likely to submit an applications in neighborhoods with strong market demands for new retail and where they anticipate a positive reception by the community. at page 7, "a general re tail [speaker not understood] appears to depend on factors such as the potential impacts on competing businesses and whether prospective formula retail tenants are filling long-standing vacancieses and/or meeting perceived community needs. in upper fillmore, for example, community members have raised concerns about large established brands competing with independent retailers. the decline in business that serves daily needs and the perception that formula retailers are lessen gauged with the community than independent businesses. along ocean avenue, however, many formula retailers are seen

as providing valuable community neighborhood services although can be challenging to ongoing brie laytion ships with them. along gore i boulevard, the community has generally supported conditional use applicationses for formula retail that fills long-standing needs but organized to oppose formula retail that competed with existing small businesses. at page 8, "the relatively low concentration of formula retail in mixed use neighborhood with formula retail control in place suggest the controls are successfully limiting the amount of formula retail in the city's neighborhood commercial districts, although other factors are likely at play. in addition to the city's formula retail controls, other factors that could affect the concentration of formula retail in different neighborhoods includes the prevalence of formula retail before the control we hadthv into effect and the different retail market street that various commercial districts serve.

at page 8, "by creating disincentives for formula retailers to locate in san francisco's commercial districts, the formula retail controls may help lower costs for independent retailers by making neighborhood commercial districts less attractive for formula retailers, formula retail controls may help lower rents in some districts reducing costs for independent retailers." we think that these findings point to a conditional use process that gives community and decision-makers an opportunity to have a reasoned dialogue that generally reaches rational and reasonable outcomes and that make sense for both residents as well as businesses. we have no shortage of formula retail in san francisco and it generally is found where communities desire it in our city. our legislation aims to close loopholes that leave ambiguity in our code and [speaker not understood] our communities and existing business he and an opportunity to have a say in critical economic decisionses

that have far reaching impacts. it also seek to bring a greater level of objective data into the decision-making process and increase civic participation. the following are the major components of our legislation. it expands the definition of formula retail to apply to businesses with 11 or more outlets worldwide as opposed to only within our national borders. here we are in agreement with the planning department's proposal. it expands the definition to apply the subsidiary businesses that are 50% or more owned by formula retail businesses and here we have, i think, probably one of our major disagreements with the planning department proposal which does not seek to address this issue. it includes retail use he that have not been included until now such as gymnasiums, check cashing outlets, massage parlorses and others. the planning department also seeks to expand the number of uses that are currently -- that are going to be covered under

the definition. our list is more expansive than the planning department's, and it includes uses that we believe communities may be concerned about, such ~ as massage parlors and gymnasiums. [speaker not understood]. impact report and submit that report with its application. the economic impact report requirements specifically exclude small scale formula retail. that would be formula retail that is under 3,000 square feet or where there are multiple outlets already existing in the city that that combination of outlets does not exceed 10,000 square feet. we commend the planning department for also having an

economic impact requirement. their economic impact requirement focuses on big box, on projects that are 50,000 square feet or more, and it also goes beyond where existing formula retail controls already exist. so, we stand fully behind that proposal. however, we believe that there are very serious economic impacts that even smaller formula retailers can have on neighborhoods. we know walgreens, for example, which used to be a traditional pharmacy, has a variety of different goods that it now offers. and for many of the retailers that we talk to, particularly convenience store owners, the presence of those sorts of stores in their neighborhoods is truly problematic and has caused many of them to go out of business. so, we feel that it's important not only to study the impact of large-scale formula retail businesses, but to also scale

that down and look at smaller retail -- formula retail impacts. our proposal would also expand notice procedures for formula retail applications, requiring more extensive mail notice, posting, internet notice. we are in the 21st century. and we feel that anything that the department can do to make our communities aware of when these projects are moving into or proposing to move into their neighborhoods, it's something that should be done. here is another point of difference. we will maintain the number of outlets that's required to be defined as a formula retailer at 11. we know that this is probably one of the biggest, if not the biggest, point of contention not only between our proposal and the department's proposal, but also in the communities that have come out to hearings like this and made their, their voices heard. we do not believe that it is necessary or wise to increase

the threshold number. the will of san francisco's voters a expressed through proposition g established that number and we do not believe there is a valid reason to change it at this time. we have been in dialogue with the planning department and continue to be in dialogue with them. we have used the information that's come out of this study to inform our own proposal and we realize that as we move forward, as both of our proposals move forward, there may be common ground to modify some of the different components that each one of us has in our respective measures and hopefully at the end of the day we can come out with the unified proposal. so, we are continuing to talk to the planning department. that's all i have in term of my presentation. thank you again for the opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> okay, commissioner questions. want to hear public comment

first? okay. let's go right into public comment, then. >> mr. president, i have one speaker card from dee-dee workman. >> welcome, dee-dee. good afternoon. dee-dee workman from the san francisco chamber of commerce. i appreciate hearing the presentation on supervisor mar's formula retail legislation. i was here before you a couple of weeks ago when the planning department staff came and presented their formula retail legislation to you. i guess i just want to point out the difference -- i think our perception of the difference between the two is that planning spent more than sick months studying formula retail in san francisco. ~ six months their legislation comes out of that study. it comes out of the conclusions of that study. it comes from data and research. it's been carefully examined. there is real method to the madness there. there is a reason why they're recommending that the threshold be lifted on formula retail locationses from 11 to 20,

which we fully support. we think that that is an excellent recommendation that supports small businesses, especially local home-grown small businesses that might reach that level and then feel that, you know, the decks are stacked against them to try to go a little bit larger even though that's modest growth. really small businesses you can't compare small local coffee stores with a starbucks, and so on. and i feel like a lot of the rhetoric that's come out of this lately has really been to kind of demonize our local small businesses that are looking to grow, like people who love them when there is one or two or three, but suddenly they become like evil large businesses when they're 11 or 12, you know. it's just ridiculous. so, i really -- i would really encourage you to take the planning department's approach at looking at formula retail

and coming up with legislation, you know, very seriously. and i think that supervisor mar's legislation, while there are some similarities, i think the differences are really kind of these large gaps between them and it really -- supervisor mar feels like it's really the intent is to really stifle larger businesses in san francisco, businesses from getting larger or larger businesses from coming here. we think there needs to be a balance. we think that neighborhood commercial corridors thrive when this is a balance of all kinds of retail, both large and small and local and national, that that's really what makes a sustainable and active and thriving commercial corridor. so, i think -- so, policies that exist really right out the gate, make sure you're not going to have the larger players in there when sometimes it is apt the larger players