>>

>>[gavel] >> i would like to welcome everyone to the small business commission meeting. the meeting is monday, march 14. this is a regular meeting of the small business commission. the meeting is being called to order at 5:32 pm. tonight meeting is being televised live in the small business commission thanks meeting services and sfgtv for televising and airing the small business commission meeting. reviewed on asset 2, 78 or live stream going to sfgtv.org and watch sfpd.2.

members of the public these take this opportunity to silence your phones and other electronic devices. public comment during this meeting is committed to 3 min. per speaker unless otherwise est. by the providing officer of the meeting. speakers are requested but not required to state their names, completion of a speaker card while optional will help insure proper spelling of the speaker's name. in the written record of the meeting. please deliver your speaker cards to the duke commission sec. prior to approaching the lectern. additionally there's a sign in sheet at the table. if you would like to be added to the commissions mailing list. sfgtv, if we could have our slide, please? do we have a-do you have our slide sfgov tv?

well president went out you >> suffice to say, as our new custom would begin each small business commission meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco and the best place to get answers about doing business the matter what stage you're in in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. you can visit us in person in city hall open monday and friday 8-5 pm. call us on the delta 415 on the delta 41555461304 or visit us online at s of government work. if you need assistance with small business mentor matters start here. at the office of small business. >> thank you sfgtv. call to

order item number one. will call. commissioner adams, here. dooley, here., dwight, here. tour-sarkissian, here., riley, here., zouzounis, speed, present. and commissioner surtees is absent. we have a quorum. >> waistcoat started. >> will move on to item number 2 which is general public comment. >> at this point we open the floor for general public comment. anything not on our agenda today is this a good time to make recommendations for things for future consideration here at the small business commission were to raise any points of interest you want to raise ticket to have anybody who would like to offer public comment at this point? seeing none, public

comment is closed. item number 2 >> item number 3 is discussion of possible action to make aggregations to the board of supervisors on file number 160065, during this is the please code paid parental leave for bonding with new child. the ordinance amends the please go to require employers to provide supplemental compensation to employees receiving state paid family leave for the purpose of bonding with a new child. this is a discussion and possible action item. today, you have the legislative sponsor supervisor scott wiener to present >> welcome, supervisor. >> thank you for having me tonight. to begin i have to leave in about 15 min. or so, 20 min. but when i leave august hours in my office whose work

deeply in this legislation will be able to stay and continue to answer any questions. so, commissioners, this legislation will make san francisco the first city in the country to guarantee 6 weeks of fully paid parental bonding leave to all workers, including our lowest paid workers in any business with 20 or more employees. it is surprising and frankly, troubling that a significant portion of people in our country and give birth or adopt or foster a child today and be required to go back to work tomorrow. for many, the choice is between bonding with a new child and putting food on the table. that is a choice that people should not have to make. even though study after study has shown time spent bonding with the child is critical for the health and development of the child, and

of the family economic realities, for many, mean that bonding has to take a backseat. the vast majority of the world has recognized the importance of paper rental leave and us, provide mothers and often fathers time off from work to help build the necessary foundation for a new family. the united states, on the other hand, shamefully at the back of the line and is one of only 4 countries in the world that does not require paid maternity leave. the other 3 countries are swaziland, and papua new guinea. instead about half of the us employees have the right to take 3 months off, but unpaid , this is unworkable for all too many workers in this country. as we have so many times before, san francisco should lead the way for our state and for our country to expand access to give parental

leave. nationally, whereas about half of the us workers can take unpaid time off, only 4% have access to paid family leave for their employers. the percentage of employers offering fully paid maternity leave has acquired substantially in recent years from 17% in 2005, 29% in 2014. we are moving in the wrong direction. only half of first-time mothers take any leave at all. some large firms that we read in the papers are leading the way for the workers which is great. among states and california is one of just 3 states along the new jersey and rhode island to offer some form of paid parental bonding leave. in many ways, california leads the us, who were still very far behind the rest of the world even here in california. california's program is paid for by employees

through the state disability fund. which in turn funds the paid family leave program. it was est. in 2004 and provides workers with 55% of their salary for up to 6 weeks. you can maintain about half of your pay for some workers that work for other workers it doesn't work and they can't make ends meet on 55%. even with this limited access the state program has translated into concrete benefits. mother use the program are more likely to initiate breast-feeding and to continue breast-feeding for approximately twice as long as mothers who do not use the program. the program average length of leave taken by new mothers from 3 weeks--between 6 and 7 weeks and the greatest gains are among mothers with lower levels of education, unmarried mothers, bettina mothers and african-american mothers. men who take 2 or more weeks off after the birth of a child are more involved than

fathers who take no leave. 83% of workers in lower-level jobs who use the program return to their previous employers. 83%. which is a 10 point improvements compared to workers who did not use the program. they leave and productivity improves productivity boil and row. even with these positive statistics from the california program there's a lot of room to grow. many do not participate in the state program because they can't afford that pay cut. the proposal before you today bears the state structure and takes the 55% to 100%. it is completely based on the structure of the state program including the income caps at

our ordinance would require full wage replacement for 6 weeks. we are honored to have the unanimous support of both the commission and status of women in the youth commission. i want to thank you for considering this legislation and i hope to have your support. i will say that we have made some amendments to the legislation. for example, when we introduced it he added the 90 day requirement that you been there for 90 days. would you be making tomorrow some additional amendment by way of substitute legislation based on feedback that we've received from the business community and we been in close discussion and dialogue with various individual businesses and some of the business association, including several large group meetings with representatives of various business coalitions. we proactively solicit feedback and we received very thoughtful feedback and we've accepted a number of the amendment that were offered by the business community. so, i'm happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner adams

>> on page 4, line 17, the 20 employees. is that negotiable, the 20 employees? >> there has been a suggestion i think that the chamber of commerce to increase to 50 employees. the problem is, the sadistic we have and correct me if i'm wrong, is that about 96% of workers work at a business that is fewer than 50 employees. so, that would exempt the overwhelming majority of workers from the legislation. even though i understand the motivation behind that request we intend to keep it at 20. >> what is hard to swallow is, and having getting a lot of feedback from small businesses, this is going to be huge burden on a lot of small businesses, and that's why i asked that question. i mean, right now with all the other ordinance

that we have to deal with in this town are you don't have to deal with it in the state of california, it's this may be the straw that makes rakes the camels back. i like what you're doing and everything, but that 20 is really really going to hurt some small businesses. i know the pain the difference between 55 and 100%. am i correct? beta yes >> what do you do if your small business new hire someone for that 6 weeks to come in and you're paying someone for the other. that's what i'm getting at. >> a couple things. first of all, these employees) are entitled to take the 6 weeks. so, were not creating a new thing. they're entitled to take the 6 weeks toured the state came up with a program for sites we so that to encourage people to take the lead and are entitled to do that right now

today. so, in terms of the logistical issues putting aside the money for the moment, but the logistical issues of an employee taken off in your tobacco and employee, first of all were talking about 6 weeks were not talking about a long-term leave under this legislation but again they're entitled to do it today. if you're going to have this it should at least be meaningful. the other piece of it i want to just mention is that this is tied to the state legislation. if the state disability percentage goes up, and there's been a push for a wild to try to increase to 80%, if that happens, under this legislation the employer contribution automatically goes down to 20% or whatever the differential is, without any need for additional legislation. so, i hope the state raises it to 80%. we will see. that change would automatically happen. the other thing-a couple other

points. the issue of part-time workers has been raised. this starts at 8 hours per week which we adopted from the paid sick leave ordinance. unlike some other ordinance for example the health or security ordinance, if you whether your working 10 hours or 40 hours. healthcare costs are the same. if you're working 8 or 10 hours a week your benefits in terms of the 45% is dramatically lowered and then someone working 40%. so, in terms of the part-time worker issue, it is purely scalable. your etiquette at 10 hours a week is going to be 75% lower than a worker working 40%. so i think that's an important thing to note. it's not the same as the

healthcare security ordinance. where it cost the same no matter how many hours you are working. the last thing i want to note, maybe mr. powers can remind me of the number, the number of paid parental disability claims in san francisco including public employees not just private, is 5500 per-in a year. 5500 for all all those in favor say, aye including public employees. this is not a tidal wave kind of thing. so, i don't think the impact will be in the same universe as some of these other ordinance have been. >> commissioner dooley >> how did you come upon the 90 days minimum requirement? that seems a little bit short to have this kick in. is that the same as the states? >> no. we came up with the 90

days and maybe mr. power can >> we came up with a 90 days. one of the operating principles that were trying to follow here is to be as consistent with the way the state does things so that we don't introduce totally new paradigm or the local employers, the state when it is looking at how the benefits impacted for the employee, they look at 90 day windows. with the course of the previous year. so they look to see how much employee has made within those 90 days and then they choose basically the window that is the most beneficial for the employee. because the structure to look at 90 day windows, we introduce that topic. that aspect for all the window considerations for the ordinance. the threshold requirement for how long with the work for the employer and amendment don't be making has

to do with how long if they decide to not come back to work voluntarily whether not have to pay [inaudible] it will come up to a 90 day perspective. try to keep it consistent across the ordinance with the state >> the other question, with california's benefit in this particular instance where we don't want to provide it a gap where the state doesn't cover you and the employer has to provide 100% because the employer is going in the gadget >> i think the state is more lenient. >> that's what were trying to ascertain. >> the state is more lenient. the commission wants to provide feedback on that how long you have to work there to qualify, we are happy to take that into consideration. i think that is a flexible area. as mr. power

mentioned, were going to be putting in an amendment to require a return to work afterwards for a period of time because we had heard a concern that people may not return to work and so we wanted to be sensitive to that. >> commissioner sarkis >> you mentioned-i have a question. the outset you said you have a number of amendments you were considering. could you please explain what these amendment are? >> sure. one of them is putting the window afterwards. they have to come back to work for at least 90 days in order not to have to give back the benefits. an in other words, there are some clarifying-i have your list here am i believe . this is from the chamber. excuse me. so, that's one amendment we're making.

>> the worker has to come back to work? >> for 90 days. yes. again that's another >> if the worker does and what happened? >> the employer can recoup the benefit from the employee. so, presumably and again when talking with the chamber and others, employers are not going to go around suing the workers what is frankly not a massive benefits back, but if there were accrued vacation there being cast out something like that they could credit it against that. but that was a request of the business community made and so we had to put that in there. again, we are happy to have a conversation about what the exact- >> homage not sure that's too. be careful about that. does the state is very ashamed of what you can claw back from

employee. if you want to get something back, you have to go after that very specifically not make a deduction against money owed. so we have to look into the legality of that. >> commissioners, the city does have a clawback clause and i put it in your notes and your binder. so, it is inner-city charter under appendix a and they do have a six-month period >> i know from taking my permit manufacturers license test that the board is very strict about what you can-what you can unilaterally deduct from an employee. >> this exhibit a pertains to non-city employee? >> it city employees. the city has set a standard. i'm just identifying it for you. at 12, at 6 months. >> the city also please fully

paisley for 12 weeks. so the city is much richer benefits. again were open to discussion. >> you should look into that and see whether that is all enforceable under the labor law in terms of 90 days and being able to deduct the pay. >> sure. as i mentioned, the chamber of commerce and other groups identified this as a request and so we've honored that request. it is reasonable. totally understand her logistical issues. this actually recouping it. i definitely do not want to represent that the perfect seamless- >> we've all conceded that. no one is going to go after-the cost of hiring an attorney far outweighs the recoup. all right. commissioner, are you finished? >> i have a follow-up question.

>> there was one where the legislation does allow for requirement team of employees to utilize their vacation time first. b can't require that they use paid sick leave first because, under the paid sick leave ordinance that was adopted by the voters and only amended by the voters and does not allow the paid sick leave time to be used for family leave. but can be used vacation time doing that was always the intent and we made some clarifying changes to make it very clear. >> that's the employee's choice, correct? you cannot impose that? can you employees it on the employee vacation time? >> yes in the city does that as well. >> that's your proposal? >> yes. for vacation but not

sick time. you can't do that under the voter adopted paid sick leave ordinance. i mentioned the 90 day clawback period. there was a request to require record retention for only 3 years, and not perpetually and we've made that amendment. then, we change the operative date to january 1, 2017 insert of making it effective 30 days after the mayor signs it. >> the retention is shortened? >> noted i think the original legislation, if i recall there was no specific limit and so we made this consistent with what i believe some other ordinance,, city ordinance i in terms that can record retention for 3 years.

>> these are the 3 [inaudible] >> there's probably a few other small ones. >> there are a whole series of small technical and clarifying amendments to make it more understandable that we are making all those amendment could i can go to the mall but- >> it's eventually can be amended and brought back. >> so, was going to be introducing substitute legislation tomorrow pertaining to all the amendment and then it's scheduled to go to the budget committee next wednesday. so, so 9 days from today >> will we have a chance to look at it again? no? >> we are happy come in tomorrow as soon as is done while the city attorney send it to for you guys to look at it and were happy to receive additional input. but were telling what the amendment-it's

what's before you today with the amendment we've described >> perhaps, for the sake of supervisors time, the detailed amendment maybe some of the smaller things may be under a can go through them a little bit later, but for your ability to weigh in after the amendment are made, it sounds like it's going to budget committee before our next commission meeting. >> commissioner riley >> i have a question. you mentioned the employer can question an employee to use their unused vacation prior to the 6 weeks. does that mean that the employee will be off for 8 weeks if they have 2 weeks unused vacation? >> no. what it means for within the structure of the 6 weeks that portion that's been

paid for, it can be-they can be required to use a patient on an exhaust that before the employer has to pay. >> so, if the employee has 2 weeks of unused vacation, does that mean employer only has to pay 4 weeks? >> i don't want to commit with having a calculator but it would be reduced. i think would actually be because the employer is paying 45% it's proportional to that. socio-2 weeks of paid vacation time model is called 50-50 for simplicity, would actually be 4 weeks out of the-i wouldn't want to do i would want to get that confirmed but that's my anderson >> i think that needs to be clarified. >> it's quite clear in the ordinance and maybe mr. powers comes up you can walk you through it more. but it's very clear and we made a clarifying amendment tomorrow to make crystal clear that the employer

can require you exhaust vacation time for that 45%. meaning, 2 weeks i believe would really be 4 weeks. >> okay. that makes sense. question commissioner adams >> i hope in the future the state and maybe one day our nation can find a way to bridge that tension between small business owner and the workers so that that one benefit doesn't counter the other. i just wanted to- >> i would love to see better overall social insurance in this country, but unfortunately we have a difficult time in congress and even in the state legislature it's been very challenging but thank y >> measures, i apologize for having to run but mr. power will remain an answer questions. we did thank you, supervisor. appreciated. any

other commissioner questions? commissioner tour-sarkissian >> so, if you have 20 employees, regardless of where they work and you are in the city and county of san francisco, then you fall under this ordinance, correct? >> yes. that's an system without sick leave ordinance, also. >> the question is, if you're not in the city and county of san francisco and if you have one worker in the city, would you be-let's say you have 20 employees, 19 of them live and work outside the city and county and one of them comes in and works in the city. with

this ordinance cover that employee? >> just that single employee. it would not extend the benefits to people who do not will work in san francisco. there's basically two-part test. the first test is looking at whether you employ 20 or more employees and that is basically anywhere. the 2nd part test as an individual employee, if you meet the threshold of requirements in terms of the number of hours and sort of the duration of time you've been with that employer, here in san francisco, those benefits would apply to you but would be you only >> it means it'll only applies only to the employee within the city? >> that's correct. we don't have the legal authority to extend benefits to people do not work in san francisco >> however, if you're an employer in the city and county and you have 19 people living and working outside the city and county in europe one employee am a that applies to all the other worker? >> as i mentioned before, there's a two-part threshold.

the first step is how many employees you have. it doesn't matter where they are. but say you meet that piece. then, the question is, do you have any covered employees? the covered employee means they work in san francisco for-so, if you have 20 employees and 19 of them-and your employer here in san francisco, 19 of your employees are in oakland and one of them is here in san francisco, it only applies to the one in san francisco. not to the 19. beta it doesn't cover the others? >> correct. to be a covered employee to work in san francisco. >> any of the questions? should be open up to public comment? we open this up item up to public comment. would any members of the public to comment ?. stephen cornell with

counsel merger district. one thing to consider is this of course is a lot money to employers in san francisco putting us into another advantage over people in our bay area or wherever art [inaudible] one thing i'd love to see in this legislation is a goes into city contracts. in the city decides to buy this microphone or lightbulb or anything else, that it be required their employees from those companies also have the same vote as we have now. i'd like to see that. otherwise it just doesn't work good you would kill san francisco businesses. actually, as a lot of people coming into san francisco and they don't have somebody physically here. i use the example of coca-cola company. i'm aware of 15 employees that come into san francisco every day. they don't have any physical presence in the city. the coke machines and all kinds of equipment to make

deliveries. how about the handled the candy? thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening good jim rogers san francisco chamber of commerce. we appreciate the opportunity with other business organizations to work with the supervisor's office on this legislation. we suggested as you know on the mom a number of amendment not only from the chamber but from all business advocates and other organization could i gather some of them are working process and the city attorney's office. we look for to seeing the version that is set to be introduced tomorrow at the board of supervisors. from what we understand a number of serious issues they have been resolved and those amendment but i think there's still a number of issues. one goes-i know this is a heavy left-but somehow within the last 10 years we define small business is somebody that has for an exemption purposes, less than 20 employees. that's micro

isn't it that's not small business. i do not we can get off of that. and gives true small business a break from these mandates. it started with the health mandates. with every ordinance, we pick up that 20 threshold and say if you have more than 20 employees you're not small pacific of course you are small business. it's just a whole different level of hr aggravation for a sole proprietor who is trying to do the books and maintain a legal operation under federal state and local law. i think the number of full-time vs. part-time employees, how may i was, again this 8 hour threshold comes out of the healthcare security ordinance good so, the size of the employer's business, the number of employees in the city, when does this benefit kick in, part-time or full-time, a lot of the clarifying issues we raised, under state law you can

take this benefit in daily doses over the course of 12 months. which is a good thing. we want to make sure the 6 weeks of that 45% pay is also something is spread out over a period of time and were not talking about an employee having to take a lump some 6 weeks at once. we appreciate the record retention changes. there is some movement in state law now in the legislature to up the 55% benefit under state law. of course, the issue is that before by being for you. the reason some of these issues don't really apply at the state level it doesn't matter who the

employer is. it matters to your recent employers have been to come up with that income average for your weekly equivalent up to $106,000 a year on the annual basis we get that for 6 weeks paid out of a pot of money and insurance account that employees in california have paid into. now were going to have employers pay that extra 45% here. what happens when the state races that? do we have to continue this on the books of the state ups this to 75% or 80%? there's actually a tax benefit under state tax law to the employee. so, there's still a number of issues. we look forward to working with the supervisor, your staff numbers of this commission over the next few weeks as this legislation goes forward to the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> scott how we calendar. let me begin by thanking the supervisor for coming before the commission presenting his legislation. i also like to make a clarification. i believe

the supervisor said my percent of the businesses were or excuse me, 90% of the employees work for companies with less than 50 employees. well it may be that 90% of the businesses are, 90% of the employees is way out of whack. in fact the number is about 52% of the people that work the businesses at less than 100. clearly, there were close to 90%. what i hope the commission does is take this under advisement and prioritize the amendment i think that would be important to do. and would appreciate it. the 2 issues i like to address that i think are really critical is i do think the 20 employees is too low. i think 15 employees make sense because it fits with the family medical leave. so, i think 50 makes a lot more sense and will not impact the businesses with less

than 50 and it could be our heavy hit it 2nd thing, i am repeating what mr. lazarus said that is the 8 hours. the 8 hours does not make any sense at all. i know it's an healthcare ordinance,, but i think that is way too low. the federal government under the aca says 30 hours. if you're buying health insurance can buy it under 20 hours. i think that 8 hours definitely needs to be increased. thank you. >> thank you. do we have any other members of the public would like to comment? >> hi. at first like to thank this of her visor and his office for working with us on this issue. in order to protect small restaurants would like to see if you amendment. first, we like to see the threshold for the number of employees go up to 50 or 100. as others have

mentioned, 20 is very small especially for how labor-intensive a restaurant is. additionally come up with a tizzy hours also pushed to at least 20 hours a week since its such an administrative burden for small businesses may have only 20 or 21 employees. we also like to see the number of days employee must work for an employer moved from 90 to either 6 months or one year. the sounds of very high turnover and 90 days is a very short might time to qualify for this program. lastly we have concerns about how employers must calculate the percentage of income for the employee because of fluctuating hours. designers in the legislation, the calculation we would be doing here would be different from how the state would calculate it. i see that also being in a missed read a burden for the smaller business. thank you. >> thank you. anymore public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners and the other comments?

>> i want to thank the speakers because they said what i've been thinking. 20 is just way too low. i really appreciate what mr. lazarus said. under 20 is micro. the businesses that have been saying stuff to me in the last few weeks are the ones for just under 50 employees. if we do approve this to go through, the one amendment x i'd like to do is at least make the threshold 50 employees and a least 20 hours work week. >> yes. from the people i've spoken with the general consensus amongst small amount

micro business owners, that this city is just aggressively -i use that word intentionally-making it more and more difficult to operate a small business in the city and county of san francisco. i think it's important for our legislative body to remember that a vital part of our economy to make sure the small businesses don't go out of business or out of the city. every time that we do these things, whether it is getting ahead of the curve on minimum wage were getting ahead on the curb of any of a myriad of benefits that we have used as our patted ourselves on the back for being a progressive city, we have made it harder and harder and harder for small business to operate here to the benefits of small business owners who, by the weight happened to be the lowest wage

employees in the syndicate were whole are hurting alternately very foundation of these jobs for the workers were trying to benefit. none of us are going to benefit this ecosystem withers and dies because we've suffocated it. so, i think what you will consistently hear from this commission, given our charter is to express an advocate on behalf of small and micro businesses, for our survival, that these types of ordinance do not sit well with our community. are all for compromise. when not here to be obstructionist, but we also have to be mindful of that leaving many of these burdens upon ourselves. so, i don't know this is a discussion item for possible action tonight. again, i don't want to come across as obstructionist but think we've heard loud and clear that certainly the limit, 20

employees or something is untenable to our community. 50 or even 100 is preferred number. so, that alone is a major sticking point. the other points that follow have been stated tonight, and i think they've already been expressed by the chamber and others for your consideration. commissioners,-commissioner dooley >> i think we should also bring up the 90 day minimum employment. i mean, especially in the restaurant industry. we have to make that a longer period of time. whether we want to recommend 6 months or 12 months it definitely has to go higher than 90 days. >> commissioner riley >> i agree with commissioner dooley that 90 days does seem very short period of time. we need to in the city maybe 6 months to a year.

>> also, i agree with you that the 20 employees is very low that would hit all of the restaurants, i think. >> also, one of the speakers i think was mr. cornell, mentioned a lot of these big corporations that are doing business in san francisco but they do not have a physical location in san francisco >> city vendors >> yes. maybe we should recommend some sort of aminorex >> i would suggest that we can make recommendations of these very specific points. i'd also suggest that we are shortly able to have no recommendation. i don't think that it would be -if we were to make a positive recommendation, i know we'll be flying in the face of our constituents we make a negative

one were potentially regarded as being obstructionist. i think we should be very firm on the recommendations we are making the changes in the legislation. some not going to make a motion but i put it to you by fellow commissioners that's a possible course of action. >> i will make a motion. i'm going to make a motion here, but i want the supervisor's office to really listen to this. small businesses in this town are under attack. i'm not kidding when supervisor wiener was standing up here and i'm a fan of supervisor wiener, but this is the kind of thing that's about to break the camels back in this town. when you go into our neighborhood in upper market, we see lots of small business vacancies and quick turnovers that you have not seen in years. when i talk to t small business owners i say why are you leaving? this is another thing the city is coming in on it it were better off moving down to san bruno or to oakland because the city is

squeezing them out. they want to stay here. now, i understand what you want to do with this legislation, and that part i like. my motion would be, first, 6 months at least working at your employment. i like the 20 hours a work per week with the employer within the boundaries of the city. i like the threshold to be raised, at least 250 employees because it is those ones under 51s really worrying me right now that goes along with the security healthcare ordinance.

having an amendment that would require all city vendors-because right now city vendors had to meet lgbt and other humanlike rights requirements. let's make them hunt, but these vendors have this requirement as well. to keep it even keel. if you can listen to us on this, and i would put forward the support these changes, then i'm okay. i do appreciate you been talking to the golden gate restaurant association and the ambers because the restaurants are the backbone of the city. san francisco is known for its restaurants. anywhere you go in the country. but i'm seeing those starting to close a more and more and starting to get frustrating. like pres. dwight said, with a small business commission and after we leave these meetings we hear from our -from these people. that is my motion. >> may i suggest that we pick

up also on the issues that were raised by the supervisor regarding vacation time? verification regarding vacation time. as to the return to work, i think that should be a condition if it's enforceable. since the supervisor is planning on adding that to be amended legislation, should we not at it to your motion? >> i would agree to that. >> okay. do you have a motion? >> yes. the motion is-well is the motion that >> i recommend these changes. >> upon condition of the proposed adoption of these proposed amendments amount which is making that the employee is eligible after 6

months worth of working, works a minimum of 20 hours a week, that threshold is 50 employees or more, applies to businesses with 50 of them employees or more. that this requirement is applied to all city vendors. and, that the additional amendment that the supervisor was making in respect to the business community's request around the clarifying language around allowing the sick i mean vacation time, the requirement of utilization of vacation time, the record retention for 3 years, the operative date of january 1, 2017, and adding the clawback clause. to the extent that it is enforceable. so, i

have those are the proposed amendment. >> i don't know mr. lazarus mentioned the were a lot of other issues they were discussing but these are the >> these are our conditions for approval. >> is this motion to approve -so, i think we want to be careful that we do not put out there we approve this and requested these conditions c because the director will read we approved it had the conditions.in the conditions are optional. when not adjudicating those good >> so, they have to-i would approve this legislation only if these get put in. >> i would suggest we have a special session to approve this legislation of these conditions written into the legislation as it is presented before goes to final vote.

>> correct >> so, then commissioners appoint of clarification. i will inform the supervisor's office of the proposed amendments, with no final action on approval or disapproval of the legislation and then schedule a special meeting once we-once the commission once we see-i mean schedule a special meeting regardless, actually ;-) scheduled for you than to take final action. so, for and before next week's budget and finance committee meeting. >> yes. that's what i want. >> so, you need to make a motion to propose these amendment be made without--your motion is to propose these amendment be maybe not taking final action >> where are reserving >> i would change my motion to

-for the adoption. >> changing the motion to make our ultimate decision conditional on adoption of these amendment. and that we will wait in between now and the final legislation. >> i'm just making notes. so, commissioners, do i need to read back through with those proposed amendments are? >> no. we are good >> so, with that, with that motion, commissioner adams motion and we have a 2nd. moved and seconded. moved and seconded. mr. adams aye dooley

aye dwight aye tour-sarkissian's ps, commissioners riley aye zouzounis aye. the motion passes 6-0 to submit the 2 supervisor wiener the proposed amendment in and reschedule the hearing for you. >> just thanks for sticking around and also thank you to supervisor for showing up today and thank you to all of you came here for public comment. it'd are you intending to have a special hearing after-when would that be? given this is moving forward at the committee >> i don't know i'll have to check with the city hall, the building on when we'll have an available meeting space. so, i will let you know as soon as i have that determine. >> thank you.

>> item-. commissioners, for item number 4 supervisor tang's office is sick and supervisor tang notified the office and i think each of you, they're not able to be present. so we do represent is for item number 5. do you want to switch those or go ahead and hear item number 4? >> item number 42 if any objection to item number 4? relative to the small business community? >> chart read into the record and then we can have some discussion?. yes >> item number 4 is discussion and possible action to make recognition to the board of supervisors on 160121. this is

changing the special tax district the san francisco sustainable financing accessibility access financing. it's a resolution making changes to the city and county of san francisco special tax district to amend to authorize financing purposes to include accessibility access financing for persons with disabilities. so, for a point of clarification, we have this special financing district that was initially started to help encourage property owners to do solar. that was increased around the stock story and my conversation with patrick--he thought this would be a good application to include it property owners to be able to finance their entryway accessibility. the cost. so that especially substantial they would not be either to go

for a loan or asking the business owner to do it. this is allowing the accessibility, allowing the cost of doing accessibility to your entryway as a means of-you can do this special tax district. as it is for energy efficiency, water conservation. >> it's totally volunteer. >> so, is there any one aware of any impact on small business or any objection from property owners small business owner? edict i personally see this as an option available to business owners. i don't see the negative impact on the contrary. it gives some flexibility therefore on how it could hurt the business >> shall we open up to public comment sous unanimity of 2 stress anything in that regard? so, if i may, we open up for public comment on this item. hello. >> i'm not sure if i don't

need to name the rest of them all the time. i'm not against this but one of the things my concern right now is use of accessibility. who is it accessible for? what is happening in san francisco is there not interpreting the american with disabilities act exactly correctly. they just think it's will chairs and canes . there are people that have autism that cannot walk properly. lou gehrig's is a big one i've had to deal with it recently. one of the cases coming up is one concerning asthma and access to the house because of other issues that are stopping us. if you vote on

this i want you to clarify that be for all the disabilities. it's just not for a wheelchair or cane. because you're looking at somebody that sometimes can walk and sometimes i can't. we are out there, too. i just think there's been a cloning, it has to be for one group. i think it's sad for our society. the tango >> thank you for your comments. any of the members of the public that would like to comment on the same? item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, any further discussion? is there a motion? >> i would motion to approve and to comply with the americans with disabilities act. i agree with commissioner

huizar cassette. it's an option and i've seen it used for the fulsome street. it's really a benefit for business owners. this is something i would definitely approve. i think supervisor tang for bringing this up because it's another option for the business owner. >> with a motion to approve this item. moved and seconded. >> i just want to comment that supervisor tang has been in the forefront of working with disabled people and pushing forward the agenda could i've worked with myself with her for many years on this. i would really like to say how much i appreciate how much work she's doing around this topic. to

make it work for everyone. >> great. so vocal about >> will call. commissioner adams nay, dooley aye, dwight aye, tour-sarkissian aye riley aye zouzounis aye. the motion passes 6-0. we will move on to item number 5.. presentation from the lombard corridor coalition regarding the lombard street corridor transit project and chestnut street projects. so commissioners, the point of clarification with a request for presentation was submitted to the office. the president of the commission approved it on the agenda but the timing is such that we do not have time to invite the sfmta to be able to present on the details, but we can, if that's what she

would like a future meeting we can invite them to present on the details could this item is on the agenda is a discussion and action item. it's not required but is on the agenda to allow you the full range of options of what you should decide whatever you would like to do. >>i want this to be a form where we hear these issues in public. and get ahead of them. whether we could get out of this we will see but certainly i appreciate you coming out tonight to educate us on the issue >> thanks. ontario northland up my family has been on the corner of fillmore and lumbar since 1914 believe it or not. we are here-your comments on the last billboard item number 3 is just perfect segue because

there are parts of the plan for lombard street that the sfmta that is planning that is completely anti-small business. there's 2 main things that one is there going to remove 47 parking places along the corridor and the 2nd thing is, the moving bus stops. currently, there in front of buildings without any private driveways or residences. there'll called caldwell banker offices and the honda repair shop. they're moving 10 of these bus stops across the street in front of small businesses and private driveways. it's so illogical and so anti-small business. there are 10 of us here to get him to be very brief with an introduction that this business owners behind me, but i want you to know, we have 650 petition signers who agree with what were going to say. all these petitions were signed in small businesses on lombard

street. the reader business owners. employees, customers, property owners. literally, 650 people along the corridor were absolutely and directly affected by these changes. so, we know-i was a small business owner for 30 years. that's where my heart is. so we all know that this would be negative impacts the loss of that much parking with moving stops in front of small stores. they deny it but we do not. we know it's going to happen. were some articles we found over the weekend that gives specific examples from berkeley and new york these exact same changes how business is went down 20%, etc. the sfmta, unfortunately, why we do not know to not do one study on the impact of these plans on small businesses. now, how they can get away with that and do it anyway, we just don't

understand that. we met with them 4 times with engineers and planners. we have said every single time this is so anti- small business. take away all parking and accessibility and putting the bus stops and all the people right in front of the small shops. they just completely ignore the argument could they want to just talk about transit efficiency and pedestrian safety. so, they claim they've had a outreach. they're doing outreach with the community and business owners. none of us know anything about this except by word-of-mouth and rumor that that information started to trickle in about 6 months ago. these fans have been in the works for 2-3. they never consulted one that landowner, one business owner,

but one resident. so these plans were created. they have this high in the sky idea of how this is going to be great for san francisco could reveal it's going to really really really harm small businesses you're talking about earlier. what you should know being on here, we are here for lombard street specifically today, but they're planning to do this on van ness avenue, on post street, on geary,. there's 24 different major streets in san francisco are parking is going to be removed and they're going to put these have the buses stopping in the lane of traffic rather than pulling over to the side. so, here is the real rub, and that is that no one oversees the mta. appointed by the mayor. we talked to regina and she said, you know, they can kind of do-i don't article you but any rate you guys don't have power over the mta and we certainly don't because as a community and group we've met with them 4 separate times and they have not given us and ate them an inch on the changes we wanted which was less loss of

parking and not moving those bus stops in front of small businesses. so, we would like to work with you at all possible. i was so delighted to hear your presentation how pro-small business and are worried about that a move to the suburbs. that's what were trying to tell the mta. if there's no parking of drive to marin and shop. they won't stop on lombard street. so what we would like to work with you from here on out i'm sorry were coming so late in the game but we do not realize this would have been an option for us. we would like to work with but your commission to insist that mta be more inclusionary, do impact studies, before they make these changes and then after to make sure they're not negatively impacting small businesses. we want transparency. so much of this was done behind closed doors before we even knew about it. little more honesty would be nice. because some of the reports are very fact

stretching let's just say. so please can form some kind of a liaison with you to work to prevent not just on lombard although that's why we are here, really looked into it because it's all throughout the city and friends of ours who live throughout the city are all freaking out in their individual neighborhoods. we are trying to finally get a hold city coalition going but anyway. we just want you to know this is happening. thank you. now some business owners from lombard are coming up >> we may have a couple questions for you. i do. if i understand, there are holdouts at the corners recommended as well as some buildout for bus stops as well. that those dildos all were moving the parking. as i see in the presentation >> yes. the removing parking on the corner so that pedestrians-there will be

parked car >> visibility issues. so the net result of that is the removal of 47 >> 47 parking space. >> what is the total number of parking spaces presently today? with the effective was the percentage loss? >> i do not know. because that wouldn't be an important thing to look at is because 1%, 10% or 30%. >> i can't open this for public comment. if we can answer the >> they said there are 110 parking meters on lumbar street so be a little over 40%. >> and that's a proxy for the number of parking spaces. then, you mentioned there intending to put some of the bus stops in front of existing driveways. so they are picking imminent

domain on the driveways? >> correct. which means residents are also going to lose the ability to park in front of their own driveways. >> how do they get? >> were losing all the private- with the bus stops the private driveways at all >> how you get in and out of your driveways? particularly b6 we don't have a bus stop in front of our driveways no because as you all know about street is retarded, 100,000 cards that go up and down lombard. when we come home usually park in the driveway. we wait for the traffic, and then we go around the block and go in the garage. now were going to no ability to park in the driveway. were going to have people waiting in the bus stop could >> i don't mean to be daft but how do you get your card into your garage under the new situation? >> they're going to take up

buildout and make a driveway. >> you still be able to access get into your garage, but it affects the accessibility of it for you >> correct. there's a safety issue also. we have studies we could show you that say it's unsafe to people waiting in driveways and we brought that they don't care. >> the other question i have is whether the bus stops as proposed also includes shelters or whether their shelter was stops? >> i think they're sheltered. so the be >> to be a visual obstruction of storefronts as well. >> correct. >> those were my commission question. commissioner adams >> first off, steve cornell, you are right.i want to give

steve cornell a shout out. this is something he brought polk street to our attention years ago and we met with mta and they were going to more community-we actually had a joint meeting appear with mta and mta says, there's a problem, let us know and we have been letting him know. i agree with you. it does seem like you're falling on deaf ears. this is not just a lombard street issue. it's a polk street. it's gary. i live in upper market and regarding lost hours and i can tell you that it's a pain to part. trying to find parking is not what it used to be and it's going into the neighborhoods people in the neighborhood can park. it just becomes-so i want to thank you for coming and organizing because that's how we have to do it. we will have

to get other places but, steve, you call this a few years ago. this is the start happening on van ness and sure enough, so i have to give you a shout out for that one. because i've been seen it myself. it's the-i know the city has this transit first policy. i get that. however, that transit first policy is not cookie cutter and it doesn't fit all areas. people still live on hills could still have to drive down the hill to shop and i keep hearing people who live up on twin peaks and drive to know we valley anymore because they can't park. what do they do? the drive down to daly city and shop. so, something does have to be done. i don't know, director gourmet who should have a joint meeting with mta. i don't know if that will help, but we've got to get through that. this is starting to become a bigger problem than

a few years ago. speak it is going to be citywide. there's no doubt about it. already people are saying it's so hard to park in san francisco. i don't go into the city very much anymore. lumbar street is a highway. the federal highway. there's all these cars commuters, taurus, to treat it like any of the street as well as everything else is just ridiculous >> i would not have a problem with the transit lanes if they would let us build parking structures in neighborhoods again. >> that's what i suggested. they shot me down on that one >> this in 1972 ordinance out there when they were to start building parking structures in neighborhoods and i believe the last one that was built was in north beach where the police station is. that was the last one built. to me, it's like that to open up that discussion again. if you want to have these transit lanes, you have gone have to put some parking structures in. maybe we all get

together and just put a ballot initiative on there and say but still some parking structures in the city. i know the transit people first won't like that but you know, after a while people do drive. i hate-it should be all us together. >> we try. believe me, we tried. there's a lot of businesses on the lombard that have had hospitals will speak next people can bring their dogs on the bus. they have this pollyanna thing well if we take away all the parking and would make the bus is a little quicker everybody's got take the bus. but that's not going to happen. it's unrealistic. >> i see the schedule properly here in the mta presentation, summer of 2016 is so near-term treatment. i presume that is something-something that's more pavement brains. the reviewing

and permitting caltrans and bidding and awarding the bits. construction is to begin in summer of 2017. so roughly 15-16 months before construction is scheduled to begin. so, there's obviously not a lot of time because were looking at summer for reviewing and permits once i get permit it's done. >> the vote unfortunately is tomorrow at 1 pm. >> the vote on? on where? bedecked at the sfmta board meeting. i wish we had moved to come here months ago but we didn't. >> commissioner tour-sarkissian >> i do have a question. you met with him 4 times and you said you had an architect with you.

>> we do not have an architect. we did not. we were just citizens. we met with them 3 times as citizens and then we met once with mark farrell's office and his 8. >> i been reading but the sfmta has in mind, but in my record i don't have what you submitted to them to did you cement anything in writing? >> i did and i can give you a copy. the tech that is something that each time you met with them you made your request same, anything- >> we've e-mailed summary comes. we sent him the studies good we 40 studies for all over the country that say, don't put bus stops in driveways. it's dangerous for the people waiting. it's dangerous for the people backing out and they just really dismissed us. >> i propose you submit

whatever you submitted to the sfmta to this body so at least we can gauge and understand what your concerns are. in writing. so we can weigh it with and maybe invite sfmta to tell us why they're rejecting outright. i see some compelling issues of safety. >> there are plans parts of the plan they're really good. really oriented toward safety and were also those parts. but then they started saying that putting the bus stop in front of the driveway and we went off on that tangent here we found always studies that said it wasn't safe the minute we said it wasn't safe, they said well, it's better for transit efficiency. pick your topic. >> i think the president said, this is a form for you to be able to put forth all your arguments and what the

president meant, this is a place where you may submit for the record everything that you submitted publicly to the sfmta. >> i have one packet we gave an there's a 2nd one i can get you a copy of. >> that's fine. mr. dooley >> i certainly understand what you're doing with since i had this to do with us on columbus avenue. my question is did you actively tell them what you thought would be ways to resolve some of these issues in a more business and neighborhood friendly and they just rejected it? >> actually, when we talk about business they just sat there and didn't say anything. they did not react to. if we talk about safety they reacted to that. but they really wouldn't talk about small businesses.

>> i had a similar experience on 2nd street where i used to live. that slated for a major major streetscape. it does seem that-they are there trying to make a basically, a test of bunch of things. based on what they've seen in european cities and things like that. so there was very-a lot of objections to business owners and residents that does feel like when you're in those meetings say to complete and your humoring you to be there listening to you. this is-i don't want to be too pejorative on. were working diligently to try to get all city agencies to be more open to public discourse before setting their plans in stone. whether it be transit orientated things or now the

latest issue is navigation centers, where to place navigation centers for homeless care. these are all things that we understand the sense of urgency but urgency cannot trump public discourse. this is fundamental tenants of democracy. >> there excuses that caltrans in 2018 is going to read paper lombard street. we have to do this all before that happens. this is their push to do things down like a tunnel. there are parts of it they could do and still we paid not necessarily the chances for these businesses to continue to be successful. there is 152 businesses on the corridor and all small. many small, none of them are really big >> about of the corner of the space that challenges with the increase of traffic and other issues that. so, we hear you loud and clear. this is a forum

where we want these issues to be brought up. this is a place where things go on the public record. i encourage people to bring their comments and read from the script because this is where it's getting written in the record where we can then express to other legislative bodies and agencies the concerns of our constituents that appear here. commissioner tour-sarkissian >> i think there is a report. it would be nice to get a rebuttal and your plan and your vision is representing these businesses. property owners are going to be affected on that corridor. it would be nice to get that together and submit it to have a complete vision or an idea of your vision. and your suggestions. this should be a place where the mta would come and explain what they are doing it and why they're rejecting your plans some or

all of them. it would be nice to do that >> we have done that and i have a copy of forwarded >> so, you say the vote is scheduled for tomorrow? >> tomorrow at 1 pm >> i was just one possible option is for us to write a letter to the mta tonight and to let them know that we heard this item to note we would respectfully request to delay their vote pending further discourse. >> that would be great. i wish then that they would do a study on the impact on small businesses. so the business would have some kind of idea what happened out on. a lot of these transit ideas these build outs and these transit things are trending now across the country. they are in latin america and europe but when i

asked what american city similar to our situation has done this and show me it's worked, they can't. there isn't one. so were going to be like the experiment and it's not going to work and what are they going to do? take out all those-put the meters back? >> will on the concept of hated or obtain it in rather than putting in the curbs, paint the areas because paint can be changed in this idea of proceeding with fixed infrastructure like curbs and whatnot, those never get changed because digging this stuff up is difficult. paint can be sandblasted and redone and is lots of temporary barriers that replaced. so if that caltrans comes through and pays that corridor, it doesn't mean they can't make virtual build outs and create temperate

structures as being done in other places of visit. they even put rocks at the corner of 5th and market to test something out. so there are ways to do it. boulders, they were. that was a temporary structure in order to basically affect a buildout. so, there are other means adding important thing is one, we do try to continue this push to dialogue earlier. we routinely call on agencies here to come have this discourse so ideally without the mta here today along with you and your presentation that they could give their presentation. we have some dialogue in this forum other than some community meeting that frankly isn't going to go unnoticed and unrecorded. then it sort of, we did outreach. often time,

outreach is not necessarily to the full constituents. there've outreach or neighborhood association or business owner did not show and they done it at a time of day where residents are business owners cannot show up. so i think bringing it here puts it on the record. puts it in front of commissioners who can also work with supervisors and aid in supervisors offices in the committee's commissions and offices that deal with the issues. >> we are available. will leave you our contact information. we do of 650 people behind this. i know there's not more sitting back there >> will make an appeal if our commission so agrees to the mta to delay their vote to what avail i can't guarantee. we can also continue the discussion after a vote. just because you voted they can't re-spew vote

>> what is the vote about? >> it would be a done deal. their proposal is online. you can find it online. it's called the lumbar street safety project. it's really transit efficiency project. >> if i may, president, invert them be asking the mta to delay were going to need, if i may suggest, tell them that you have a plan. you have a suggestion and those should be in the record. >> objections. we won't necessarily be able to say don't remove these 47 spots. remove these 47 spots. it's heavy we don't want 47 spots removed. we can do with 10 because we think otto >> there are valid reasons for

moving- >> it even come to the table with a suggestion for how you can meet somewhere, whether in the middle or off to the left or right, and not just say, no, because no one also hear the word out. >> we have done that. we came at the whole we have conceded to i think, 6 parts of the plan . this is what we told him at the last media look how far we've come. you've talked us into 6 things we were against in the beginning. they haven't come 1 inch. they don't want the bus stops moved. and we don't want to lose all those parking places. that's the change. that's how simple it is from our perspective. we are now in agreement that some of the things they want to do really are for pedestrian safety. >> okay. i think having a dialogue in a form like this if we can would be useful. that being said, as well, we can certainly put this on the

agenda for your presentation of those items so we can for that to the mta for whatever it's worth. we need to press on and keep pressing on these issues. just because a vote happens tomorrow you don't stop pressing on it. than the status quo becomes we just power through. we vote it's done and everyone shuts up. that's no good. we can't allow that to happen. >> that's exactly what we wanted to hear you say. thank you. >> more discussion commissioner riley spit i like to hear the public comment. >> we will get to that. commissioner dooley >> i was going to add what commissioner dwight said witches mta has been pretty tone deaf for a long time. we have talked to them once but i feel we want to encourage as many neighborhood groups that are being affected to get

themselves together because they're not listening. also, i know for my area, we should be able to suggest ideas that are less invasive to the neighborhoods. for example, scramble. that is, to me your paving with color treat a scramble is an amazing way to assure safety and i see it all the time on california street, downtown. everyone crossing at once stops. to me, that is along the lines of painting it. we don't need have huge build outs. we need to start in a way that's more friendly to the neighborhoods needs, especially small business and because of that, we need to get together

with mta again. all of us. go over this and say, here we are again. >> it's a conditioning process. >> in losing our private driveways, the businesses are street all user private driveways as loading zones they will lose that. some of the businesses on lombard. of this was private driveways are takeout food. delivery of animals. the pet babysitting thing and that-there's businesses here was private driveways not just for the residence. we share. i think for small business abide in a parking in my business is over and i would have made it. >> good point. i digitally protect the one parking place i have in front of my business as well. so, if there's no further questions, will open this up to public comment. thank you very

much. we appreciate it. any members of the public that would like to comment on this item? >> if you can hold off just a moment like it the timer. huizar just a reminder public comment is limited for 3 min. that is the rule of order here. so, will get out of virtual halt and drag you off the stage. when you hear the first time the means of 30 seconds. we need to the last time please make it so we don't have to drag you off the stage. here we go >> i'm ready now. >> to answer a couple of questions, we have done what you said and we've had actually had boards up and we taken notes. they sent as e-mails with what we did and totally ignore everything that we've done. we've given them what you suggested.

>> what we call charrettes. >> outlook debbie does close your eyes and think about union st., fillmore, up and down, just a street and lombard. we talked about thousands of small businesses would talk about how the community lives, the people live in those areas so they can walk to those stores and be part of them. steve, you were talking about how city is killing them. so, my name is dr. roger can a veterinarian and owner of the marina pet hospital the 2024 lombard st. since 1970 the hospital was founded by dr. carol in 1938 and is one of the oldest businesses in the city. doing the same thing in the same neighborhood. i only include this bit of history to emphasize my knowledge of the challenges of doing business on lombard the limited parking and ever-growing traffic. removal of one parking space on lombard

is one too many. let alone 47 that are being recommended by the sfmta. the loss of a parking space not only affects the spaces that clients use, but at same time reduces space available to employees. without the spaces and easy access small businesses will lose clients and find it even more difficult to hire people. i employ 12 people a day, 7 days a week. each of them was find a parking space 3 times in an 8 hour shift. talk about 9-12 hours a day for looking for parking spaces were nonproductive work. now, let's assume the average business on lombard have 10 employees and their 200 businesses total. that's 2000 people. as 2000x3 times a day times 15 min. we are talking about 1500 hrs. of people looking for parking spaces did you take away 47

spaces it's a catastrophe. especially for the employees. there is somewhere between 150-200 small businesses along with hundred thousand cars from over 10,000 local residents, service providers, tourists, all doing business consuming products and seeking service on lombard daily. but as of today, sfmta has not done one study to evaluate the impact of its decision upon the lombard small business. >> that was your hook. you end up on a high note. thank you. >> to have any less would like to comment the 6 welcome. >> my name is don evans and among the cal hollow association board of directors and him head of the traffic and

parking committee for that august group. i started working with this one but street project in july of last year. i just want to mention that at the very first meeting, which was held at a church on union street, i went to this and talk to the engineers and support that i talk to these guys my first comments from you people just tone deaf. i came to that conclusion pretty early. what i would like to say is with respect to some comments on sfmta being concerned about small businesses, and residents, when we first got into this we start asking them how-what their review of the effects of these proposed changes are on the businesses and they said we done a survey. everything is fine. so i said,

well, i been in business for 40 years large and small businesses and so forth. what are the results of your survey? we do not publish them. well, everybody that is a survey for some purpose publishes the results. well, we didn't. well, what was the survey? as i drove down and down and down were several meetings over several months i found out that they sent an engineer out to knock on some doors and me business cards when nobody answered. the tactical businesses and that was the complete extent of what they learned from small businesses. in their preparation. secondly, i want to mention that chestnut street is about 200 feet away from lumbar street and there's a chestnut street safety proposal project going on right now. it also has possible parking, holdouts for buses, build outs for pedestrians and

similar proposals that are negative toward small businesses. we have asked them time and again to consider the impact on both of these projects because you can't consider one of these projects alone. they're not independent. they have not done that. then, i like to say that i've also worked with a group of at sfmta that's emotional policy, which was approved in november and modified just recently passed by the board of supervisors. i learned from them and asking about clubs because they mention hubs and i wondered all along was scott street didn't get any of this bombardment did i find out they're planning to transit private hubs in on scott street in lombard effective 11 parking spots and negative impact on local

businesses. i can name the businesses but my time is up. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> sfgov tv if we could have the overhead. >> there we go. >> i just want to point out how much sfmta has just blatantly ignored the small businesses. the general manager for when a vista motor on lombard and golf. one day and came up an engineer came up and said were proposing it by stopping your white zone and you're there move your white zone to cross the street did i said okay well let's discuss this. i thought i was beginning a dialogue. he said i told him we can't do that if you going to ruin our business. anyone

has to go 6 box around to get to the white zone. so apparently, i know they did not do any studies. reagan looked at however impact the business. we been going on since then and they finally realized they can take a white zone away from us just recently i had an e-mail from their manager from lori hunter, she's as well, you can keep your white zone but will keep the buses at the bus stop there. i went, that doesn't give us any satisfaction. we argued with him about the noise of the buses. they're the bus that runs in the wee hours of morning in front of our hotel and that's when the major points we've had to deal with gas. if that comments could bring your phones. tuesday at the hotel. so, the main thing is to for them to validate the value the bus stops there. they

just have not done that. they just have gone along with it and finally with e-mail, you can keep your zone but were going to keep the bus stops. we've given them so many examples of why it's not valid to put it there. number one, they want to put a bus stop on laguna and the mayors. before that is on fillmore, 3 bucks awake and were saying try to make it more efficient at how does that make you more efficient? than from laguna they want to make it on g st. government can make a left turn on dennis. that's a one-way left turn. coming into van ness to bombard there's 3 things that make left on. so the one lane that turns up towards northpoint is so congested, it's ridiculous to add another line to get we tell them that. we've also told him when the summer comes along, and the

coconut street backup starts a go 3 blocks down and effects that left her. right now, during peak hours the backup already goes to blocks past-. at the beginning of the month as a bus driver that came up to golf weighted for the red light . he took a right turn on golf. because he got so frustrated. he knew he could not get across. he stopped in front of our place to make after transfers of 3 lanes which is pretty dangerous. especially the backup. >> we hear your message. >> they're not listening at all. they not do any studies >> thank you very much. >> my name is jonathan meyer. on the order of the child's delight the toy store at the corner of lombard and fillmore. we are extremely concerned about the proposed changes

right now, we have 2 metered parking places on lombard right in front of our store. they get regularly used by customers that's going to disappear. i just want to say, in the few minutes i have, you are probably aware that rick and mortar retail is under a lot of stress now. amazon, prime, number ships increased like 22% during the holidays. there's an issue called show roaming where people come in with their smart phones, scan a barcode in the store and have it delivered by amazon the next day. so we don't need more obstacles and impediments to try to do business. so the monitor if this is life-threatening, but if you google, effective bus

build outs on retail businesses, there are numerous articles online that cold business owners saying their business has significantly been impacted by having a bus in front, stopping the fumes. we have young families with small children going in and out of our store all day long. with crowds of bus stop patrons complicating the matter, were very concerned about this is going to impact our business. i think you've heard most of these arguments already, but i'm just putting in my $.02. thank you. >> thank you very much. next? >> thank so much for doing this. we appreciate all your comments and your concern. i'll be very brief. i want to

underscore what jonathan was just talking about a moment ago. there are a numerous articles online talk about the impact of bus build outs on businesses did have 2 things in common that we seen here in san francisco. one, there's been no advance notification to any of the business. in other words, when they came to us the meeting at the church back in september, it was a done deal. those were the plans. the result community input at all. then all the national studies come if you read all them, one of the things they talk about when relocating bus stops to get community input. that was not donned. it was done after the plans were already drawn all. that's one thing. they all say get community input from businesses to residence, get the community input not done. lastly, the things the articles are talking about is as jonathan mentioned, they'll say they've lost business. thank you. >> thank you.

>> patricia born. this is one of the most absurd cases i've seen in a long time. according to ceqa you're not supposed to piecemeal. first we heard about chestnut. i could say no hearing about lombard. they refused to tell me anything. i can try to call the planning department to see if there was an eir. no, we don't have anything. then they had the first meeting at chestnut. at 120 120/131 business and neighbors voted against the project. if not done accumulative study of running to strips, the exact same way almost, and the ramifications of losing of losingparking placesthey say 47 on lombard what i am

saying, without google buses they just added from another department, it is up to 58-60. now, then you have to start thinking about the driveways where deliveries cannot be made. my restaurant is one of them. is a lady who has severe asthma that needs medical care. i've never had a case that has upset me as much as this. they basically said, were going to do what we do and we don't care about you. one person said we care about buses. we don't care about people. on lombard, they are trying-i'm just not the time to take out take away the mallorca stop. seniors will

have to walk 100 feet to the nearest bus once they get off. this is criminal. this goes against the ada. it goes against the federal health goes. it goes against the fair housing act. the owners of the buildings were not notified. they make promises good to refuse to sign any pieces of paper. please vote and save our small businesses. we've just lost 3 to triple rent. they matter. thank you. >> thank you. we have anyone else would like to make public comment? >>i just want to bring up the transit first study. cannot

redo the whole thing i think everybody forgets about it but the number one item, the first item on transit first is to ensure quality of life and economic health in san francisco. it's never done. they completely eliminate it. you've heard about the studies. they have never done and economic impact study for any business or business area. the idea of what they're doing is piecemeal. polk street is happening as bad as. to the same time as lombard and maybe gear he street. it's not a little thing. to give you an idea what's happening on them as they have to move all the sewer lines, all the connections for the sewer lines, all the electrical and water lines has to be moved before they can start doing anything

else. that takes a lot of time. it into gather. when lombard street is being worked on van ness is being changed those cars are going. try golf st., troy franklin street. it's going to be the big squeeze. everywhere it's happening. nobody is listening. they keep saying we're doing all these things for safety. the emt a of courses never put anybody on their from a small business were neighborhood on their commission. i got appointed to this cac, citizens advisory commission or committee, did i hear some things. last week we got a presentation about the zero clan in san francisco. that is no depth on any city streets. now going to its 3rd year. the first 2 years, i asked, with the improvement,

what is the change? they had zero change. david the same number of desolate before they ever started this. they had 128, 124 projects completed and not one changes happening. maybe they should change what they're doing or look at it. i don't have answer but 2 years going into the 3rd year, nothing has changed and they don't plan to change anything along that. i don't think they're looking at it the right way. we are the ones who are getting hurt here. >> thank you. next. >> my name is jamie could tell. our family owns the point of this the motor on lombard and golf. sfmta, we keep hitting a brick wall with them. they put a bus stopped there and but basically adding ontowhat are general manager mike going

back and forth but a list of negative impact of losing the white zone. the white zone is the hub of all traffic in and out of the front door of the hotel. this is where the pickup and drop-off of arriving guests and departing guest takes place. it's a safe waiting zone for gas because in view of our front desk. all luggage is unloaded and loaded along with direct access of our handicapped guests who have a lift to the front desk. the 2nd one is negative impact would be added noise pollution it already, a sore point for gas at a hotel. looking at any of the websites, the advice guests give to other travelers they suggested that from because of all the noise from the traffic.

that's it. >> thank you very much. next up for public comment speak works? >> good afternoon. speaking as a concerned citizen. i was just told to mention the fact that a lot of the workers in the neighborhood have to come from tracy and pretty far east and there's no real easy way for them to get there. from that kind of distance. as you know a lot of workers have been pushed out of the city. a lot of people that used to work in the city now to commute in about people who now live in the city commute out. so the commute has gone really haywire. anyway, i was basically just going to mention one of the areas that we looked at trying to look at a lot of neighborhoods that

businesses of been really harmed by the kind of activity that's been going on. we got some information about the castro street redesign. i understand that this number of businesses that have closed since this complete streets project was completed as from new york pizza, the body shop, at least 3 closing stores, and the hero design have all been -have all disappeared from the street. we understand that something like 60% of the income of some of these companies has gone down it so that's a rather striking figure if you think about it how can they stay in business there. it seems as if there's 37 vacant storefronts in the area now. one of the things that i've noticed because i go to these planning commission hearings a

lot is that there's this tendency to have all this to activate the sidewalk they want retail. they want a lot of retail moving in. there's a huge amount of empty retail so doesn't make a lot of guns sense to add retail and there's less retail. his last demand for the retail either they can't afford the rents or whatever it is. the just a way for them to stay in business. so that something we really need to put on the record. we really want to keep looking at as we go forward with this hospice, it was interesting, i also heard that the mission zero has been not very productive in terms of the results. there's actually been as many deaths as before it got put in. so thank you very much for your time and we so appreciate your efforts to help the small businesses stay alive in the city. thank you. >> thank you. is there any

loss would like to make public comment on this items the 6 seeing none, public comment is closed. i think the major take away here is that community outreach is essential. one, if the democratically. also, more poorly, that's into the collective knowledge of residents and business owners know intimately the daily rhythms in the seasonal rhythms of their neighborhoods. whether it be transportation or whether it be pedestrian traffic of people visit the neighborhood and that these daily and seasonal rhythms are vitally important to planning infrastructure projects. because if you don't know them we can expect the mta to be an expert on every inch of every neighborhood in the city. that's why we should rely on the collective wisdom of everybody who lives there. so i

think we need to continue to impress upon the sfmta is there missing out on one of the biggest assets when it comes to planning these projects and the very people who witness what happens there every single day. without that information, they're almost doomed to run into objections from those who see what happens every day. so, we will continue our quest to get them to be more-to be better listeners and to the earlier outreach and we will certainly make an attempt to impress upon them the importance of that in this particular case but also in all future cases. we also hear you on the interaction of projects that go on adjacent to one another that very rarely-we tend to consider these things in isolation it in that there highly interrelated. so that's another thing that we have stressed some of our

meetings, to know what else is going on in the neighborhood because we do get the big squeeze plays where projects conflict with one another and sometimes [inaudible] and up with the matter betters of you we appreciate you coming out to get him and allow my commissioners have some other comments then we will move on. commissioner dooley >> i just want to say that the best thing that we all can do is to keep in front of all of this. have our voices heard over and over and over again should that is the only hope we have of getting a large organization to start paying attention. the tendency is just the planners could not looking at humans. the not looking at neighborhoods. we have to go over and over again good to

folks like you and every neighborhood you to step up to the plate and say, hear us. we insist on being heard. it's not easy. but we are behind you. >> i cannot express it more the importance of having a strong neighborhood association the strong business association in every neighborhood. i'm in the dogpatch neighborhood. we have both in our neighborhood and we are vigilant and expressing our views and presently were one the fastest-growing neighborhoods in the city and were under tremendous pressure. doubling the population of our neighborhood which was once a backwater in the city over the next 24 months. we have literally thousands of people moving into our tiny little neighborhood. so i cannot stress more the importance of organizing ourselves and being -meeting regularly in coming out to public comments and forums like this. commissioner

tour-sarkissian >> in light of your action and testimony, i think you would be practical since were facing a deadline tomorrow that we would -this is a proposal. that we would like to write to the sfmta and request that they hear us out. suggests that prior to making up their mind and reaching a final position, they ought to listen to you and maybe we can attach to the letter but you submitted today, including all the support that you get from your fellow neighbors, who signed-do we have their signatures in support tonight? >> i can e-mail you.

>> i think that's crucial that be done out in an official fashion and the economic study and impact study be suggested before a final decision is taken. of course, that is they can still do what they want. but at least you will have had the opportunity to present it one way everything that you have put forth to date. so that is my suggestion >> i would 2nd that. >> so, commissioners can to make sure i've noted this clearly, so a letter will be drafted to the sfmta board to get to them in time for tomorrow's meeting. with the attached documents requesting that they not take