recent fill as recorded by connecticut insuring that is an excellent geotech firmer you have to take the stairs do you think that's the issue here that's the issue as far as, mr. dui listency it was because of his injection into the planner that is being removed and new one being built if it wasn't for him we have another issue with the planner thank you very much. >> thank you project sponsor you have the rebuttal. >> commissioners, i have no other information to add out of respect for our time i'll wave them. >> that clicks the public hearing portion. >> commissioner richards. >> i i guess i recalled a

situation where a neighbor built something up against my house we came to an agreements i sad with the neighbor we talked about it he pulled his fill away and another neighbor removed the thing like a gate attached to my house and this was the neighboring thoing thing to do mr. license platecy we had an issue of who is house was leaning we talked a survey and oh, my god so i cut a piece of my house off and went on my merry way i thought why didn't

mr. casey do this and that you've offered to do so i think the process for the building inspection will take care of a lot of the issues i don't support taking the dr those are side permits. >> is that a motion. >> motion. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i too have experienced the first house we sold a sub grade and part of the sellers expense was directed at the problem somewhat similar but i'm not quietly quite sure what we're able to do at this point sounds like both sides are awe meblt to the caseys going ahead and removing the fill and laughing the folks that make the repairs as part of the agreement and putting a new foundation for

the stairs in bedrock and building the new stairs on that side and the other issue everybody is able to a survey to determine the line and put their deck on whatever it is appropriate can we condition any of this stuff or is this all dbi stuff. >> i think it's all dbi. >> okay. well my finding will be i've heard the discussion that sounds like the way it some precede, however, i'm not sure we can take dr we have to allow for the process of legalization of the deck or the and then you know the process of legalization of the stairs that are existing in completion of the deck sir, you have a comment on that. >> you have to come up to the

microphone. >> thank you frank i just i understand it's a dbi issue but you have an understanding and that understanding is that mr. casey is willing to remove the stairs and lower the fill height and allow the gentleman - can you motion say your motion is based on the understanding those things will be done so in confusion and we may be able to say we have a finding i would feel a motion of we do not take dr we'll have to disapprove but we're not taking dr but with the recommendation those things be done if it's okay. >> i'm even though maker of the

motion i have licensed approvals in architecture and spiritual jerry civil engineering the applicant has its own engineers here he building that the standard of care in all profession represented here are enough with the dbi to have the competent obligation to adhere to what the professional conduct requires if you're doing the process of dbi it disputes this commission didn't have the professional quantifications to get into the things except the department urging the dbi expertise to deliver a project that a.d. here's to all higher standards of professionalism we all can testify to that you all have our licenses so i'll leave that with that, i can only port authority what it does want asks

it commission to do so you can defer to the commission planning meeting on in meeting. >> commissioners, if i may the staff feels it the inappropriately in front of you those are not appropriate in front of you, we do not recommend you take action. >> thank you for clarifying that director ram. >> commissioner hillis and unless we want to take dr and ask the people to be good neighbors i've roved that by getting up on my roof with my neighbors i have good neighbors. >> please call the question. >> a monoxide and second to not take dr.

>> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner fong that and commissioner president wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 78 to zero lae and place you on general public comment. >> general public comment general public comment is closed. we would like to generous or adjourn the meeting in honor of jennifer m

meeting. >> good evening it is monday december 8, 2014, we're starting the san francisco small business commission at 5:30 the san francisco small business commission is televising live looked like to thank sfgovtv for their efforts to televise this meeting and the sfgovtv for making in meeting possible members of the public please take the time to silence our cell phones and other electronic diaz and i don't think we have to appreciate right now so mr. president, shall i call the meeting to order. >> yes. >> commissioner president

adams commissioner dooley commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena sfen arrest commissioner white commissioner bonilla mr. president, you have quorum. >> okay. next item general public comment do we have any members of the public that want to make comments on items not on today's agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed next item, please. >> mr. president, item number 3 is the possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 141098 house and business and tax regulation code tobacco sales and associated fees a new ordinances amending the ordinance by adding the proximity it and the granting of

new tobacco sales permits renumbering all sections of article i 9 h this also amends the business and tax code by enabling the application and license fee and making the environmental venltsd i don't see victor in supervisor mar's office. >> do we want to then we can move and switch item three and four if ellen is here with the off office of. >> we'll extend item 3 and move open to item 4. >> thank you. >> item 4 a presentation been the health care security succeed administration guidance on the health care on ordinance issued october 2, 3, 424 and elie less than here from the office of workforce and development to

provide a presentation to you. >> you want to then we can go with victor first. >> let's switch back to 3 to keep it in order. >> thank you ellen for grayish stepping in we'll go back to item 3 and victor call you up to have the presentation this has been called introduced into the record. >> sorry for being late i'm viking for olympic aid to supervisor mar the inhabitant and others have been working on the current codes had is amending the code by adding

proximity and statute of limitations on the business and tax regulation code by increasing the annual license and application fees for permits and making environmental finding so be a little bit about the history this came to us about 2 years ago if the youth institute and they saw that in many of the lower income neighborhoods and districts in san francisco that saw a high in number of mom and pop stores that own and hold tobacco licenses they want to see if there's a way to put a cap on that and it would also at the same time not to adversely effect the licenses in place with a lot of the establishments so we worked

with the arab association and this legislation to negotiate and finalize the details of the legislation for the currently form we have now and what we're going to propose is that each spoiler district we want to propose a cap of 45 and no existing permits will be taking taken away if you are killer own the store it will remain in place and if a business lose their permits the district over the cap of 45 a new permit will not be issued in that district, however, i'll go over the details no new permits issued to a new location no change in for a new location.

>> there are some carve out categories and certain categories of businesses like restaurant low you no longer be issued a permit a business remit for new permits no new permits issued to a new business between five or six photo of a school or 6 photo from another tobacco store, however, a one-time permit for long term stores at the physique date of the ordinance for retail food stores that submitted a proof they've been in business foyer three or four years at the same location they can sell their permits along with the permit to the buyer for one time and if this new owner of the

store the mom and pop store they choose to rain it for 2 years in business continually they'll be able to have a second one time permit sales to the second buyer of the store and also most recently, we worked with the cigar bar and they also will be given exemptions from the limitations on the new rule and permits will be made available one time passed down to a child of an existing owner this will not apply to the purchase ersz of the business so if all of you and my son had a business today, the business also carries a tobacco licensed we can pass it down to our children and the defines will be

made out by bio logical children and this point you see district 3 and 6 they are heavily over sat ratted they have over 2 hundred licenses in those districts some districts are under the capacity of the 45 so over negotiations we came up with a number of 45 as a recommendation and this is really to help promote a new healthy business model there's been questions about would there be effects to the business revenue and it supports a healthy retail ordinances we passed supervisor mar passed earlier in the short run they'll receive assistance

to change their business model because for certain owners they may the sales of the current business may have a significant business from cigarette butts so for healthy business models and programs occult there it will help them do more fresh food and updating their mom and pop stores to see what they can provide to change the percentage of sales of tobacco and provide new programs and products and other things so that's the general overrun or summary of the tobacco reduction ordinance and supervisor mar wants to call it so any questions from the xhirtsz? >> my commission questions arrest commissioner riley. >> hi. >> hi.

>> thank you for your presentation and here's where the 45 or more predicaments in the district no more new permits being issued so how many of the district have 45 or how many under. >> about one hoof so this is i would need to get the data for you i'm not sure if you're packets have the day maybe 2/3rd's of the districts are over the 45 limit threshold. >> so there's a few that have less than 45. >> yes. >> so where we see i wish i had the map to present today but if you look at chinatown and in 3rd district and selma and the tenderloin and look along mission enter and outer mission

some along third street business corridors along norway we go and cherryville and others geary you'll see a higher number of the stores with the tobacco licenses this is out of any memory now but definitely districts 6 and 3 are well over capacity. >> so what - where does the 45 come from. >> this was from the thinking public health department and with the gorgeous association it helps to reduce competition it didn't hurt or effect the current businesses because with the preservation of new licenses the current business owns what

the license will be able to continue their sales and over and i transition you'll see a reduction. >> thank you. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> i have two questions about the distinction just the name for a question. >> sure. >> you know the defined tobacco shop and restaurant we first retail food stores under the section it talks about the new radiations it refers to the planning code what's the retail of the food store. >> retail food store. >> did that include the liquor store. >> if the store is offering food or acholic beverages let me

see. >> the main purchase of the location to offer food and alcohol sales like liquor for most of their sales then this law kicks in to not allow the issuance of the permit but let me get a clarification my colleague had a last minute issue. >> you're reading from your notes not from the meantime. >> i have a version felt not right here. >> yeah. >> another question about the about the children. >> uh-huh. >> just before going to the children why does r does it not include the spouses or the domestic partners. >> that's the discussion of the association i wasn't there but

this was explored earlier so there was a top like a direct from the next was what they agreed upon because it would open up a different topic like cuz or spoudz we tried to keep it simple but simple by excluding the wife. >> i said the deceased and the spouse takes over the second issue when it passes onto the child does the business have to be in operation years in doing that or for any business there's a free passage to the child. >> that's not clear he let me get clarification tomorrow

they're going to introduce the objection detrimental shopping so i'll have to get back my understanding that should be separate from the respiratory that we are talking about for 5 years and the 10 years for the child. >> that let me get the technical answers for your. >> i'm done. >> okay. >> sorry i couldn't target. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena thank you for the presentation and it had a lot of positive feedback the only question any consideration for businesses that are going through the conditional use they have year cap and then the 45 mark but ems this commission is progressing

and the business plan didn't have that included that legislation were passed during the process so i was wondering if any consideration was given. >> again that is a very technical question cu process i know there are certain stores under the process there is the cut off date for the submissions before september 1st of 2014 but i have to refer to the actual legislation i'm sorry i don't have it in front of me i know what they're talking about for certain businesses that are trying to open up pending right now. >> uh-huh, uh-huh. >> but i don't have an answer at this moment. >> sorry. >> all right.

>> commissioner dwight. >> did if allow for a business to move a location if you're licensed. >> if you move it's considered if it's visible through the whole thing but that would be a transfer unless the same person. >> if a person is forced to move from in their location is the building changes hands can we move to a acceptable. >> we're going to have the legislation on this this is the soft story ordinance we didn't foresee this issue right between two or three weeks ago we're going to make we're going to have this approved and address that issue with the follow-up legislation first thing and when we come back in january with you yes. that will be addressed.

>> another thing i'd be surprised in community participating property laws explicit preclude this from transfer of the a to a spouse you have the transfer you may want to check the legit and finally i'm a little bit interested in this idea of regulating the number to an absolute number that is the same in each district i'll presume over the years they were last drawn they changed the mixture and what's the per capita of the density of those businesses it seems like it is ash traded by district then by the area covered and the residential density and the business density so those businesses are

different in they're comingtion i wanted to point out the bayview is different so it is also a large area. >> right. >> that's a good question when we started this 2 years ago we want to look at did police districts they had a lot of districts or based on cb d or so or neighborhood i think at the time it was hard to come across another way of separating it i agree and understand that the geometry is different what we know since the data we're using roadway was a collected in 2011 there's been minor changes but the districts that are still over the suggested threshold of 45 still residential true

so i think at woody allen one way for the convenience of deciding the administrative review of this ordinance i hear what you're saying. >> yes. by convenience we're here to make laws and do it in a way that's not capricious i think that it would be interesting to know whether there's some kind of uniform in the per capita basis just the flub of districts there's new districts and do they have chargdz and they effect the make up of the business so it might be we're disadvantaging the districts because we're using the same number in all districts i'm not pro smoking but you

perhaps - and in terms of it may not be convenient but i hear what you're saying and that's why there are exemptions to allow the current holders to maintain the business that's over attrition not effecting the businesses. >> not apparent requirement other than a side conversation with the mixed use it is capricious the way it's late out. >> again i'll have my colleague follow-up on that particular point. >> commissioner white. >> yes. commissioner dwight mentioned what i was going to bring up to determine the 45 i wanted a clarification to make sure if i'm a current holder when i sell my business the new

buyer gets the right to get the tobacco license. >> yes. >> and if there's someone else pending for a licensed if this district like the special 45 is there 0 no way to take that step? >> meaning you mean if you want to sell our business to me and it's in a sat ratdz area can it be passed down. >> no, if someone is pending and we're in the middle of a transaction. >> that person will not be allowed because the exception is for the currently holders to the current business to the next purchaser. >> okay commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> i have a question about the move outs because the fleets in