meeting. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. completion of the speaker card will help ensure proper spelling of the names in written record. speaker cards we called any water in which they were placed in the basque. additionally there's assignment sheet at the signing table. sfgov tv can you these show our sign? >> dwight, one of you go ahead and read it >> yes. sure billy goats are custom at each small business commission meeting reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business and san francisco and the best ways to get answers to questions about doing business 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 find us online or in person here at city hall and best of

all all our services are free of charge. the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns the policies that affect the economic vitality about small businesses and san francisco. if you need assistance with a small business matters start here at the office of small business. thank you >> all right. we are still on the phone with command central. they're not sure who to give the award to. we have to make sure we get the right one. >> okay. there we go. we've got live feed. all rights. item number one call to order and roll call commissioner adams here dooley here dwight here ortiz-cartegena here tour-sarkissian is absent yee-riley, here. zouzounis. mr. pres. you have a quorum >> all right. first item spam 2 general public comments. members of the public to comment generally on matters within the small business

commission's jurisdiction but not on today's calendar. and i just knew agenda items for future consideration. discussion item >> before you do public comment minders public comment in his meetings is limited to 3 min. except in the case when we left doing legacy business of the common is 2 min. and if you hear a chime 30 seconds remaining then we'll cut you off at the second time. not to be rude just to be fair to everyone who wants to make public comments. we have any members of the public aa to comment presently on anything that knots on the agenda for today? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item >> item number three discussion and action on legacy business registry applications and resolutions. discussion and action to approved the following action to approve the legacy business register. art-house gathering and books incorporated presenters richard carrillo program manager and all of the patients we considered together unless the member of the commission the public with the staff request otherwise in which the event

the application will be considered as a separate item at this or future hiding the >> good afternoon richard carrillo legacy business program management before you today are to applications for your consideration to the businesses to be included on the legacy business register. by the powerpoint presentation. the applications were reviewed by me for completion and submitted to the planning department staff on january 3 for their review. historic preservation commission her the applications on february 1 and made positive recommendations to the small business commission. for each applicant in your commission packet contains the staff reported draft resolution, the application, case report from planning department staff, and a resolution from the historic preservation commission. there's copies on the table for the public. item 3-8 is art-house gallery art-house

gallery is a contemporary fine art gallery located in the south of market mission bay neighborhood on brandon street. founded in 1996 the business has established itself as unique gallery that holds special relationships with the community, showcases our diverse array of collections by local artists and opens its doors the neighborhood to use as a community space for meetings and events. art-house gathering has not yet operated in san francisco for 30 years or more but it significantly contributed to the history and identity of mission bay neighborhood and if not included in the registry faces significant risk of displacement. item 3-be his books 8. business is a local independently owned neighborhood center bookstore which is been in san francisco's under various names

and ownership since 1857. not incorporated as books inc. until 1946. isolate books incorporated has three locations in san francisco. the arena district on chestnut st., civic center on van ness avenue and the old san francisco location in presidio heights laurel heights on california street. each neighborhood store reflects the needs and wants of the community and employees one or more literature specialists who rose to variety of book clubs, storytimes, and events and become great resources for patrons. both businesses receive a positive recognition from the historic preservation commission. after reviewing his applications in the recommendations from historic preservation commission, staff finds the businesses about the three criteria to qualify for listing on the legacy business registry. there are two draft resolutions for consideration by the small business commission. one for each of the legacy business registry

applicants. note, a motion in support of the business that should be a motion in favor of the resolutions. news meeting, is in addition to the staff reports in the resolutions that i want to bring to your attention which indicates the core physical features or traditions that define the business. for art-house gallery, it is art gallery space and four books inc., it is retail book sales get the businesses must maintain these core physical features in order to remain on the legacy business registry. michael tucker from books inc. was not able to attend today's meeting. he asked me to read a statement on his behalf if i may do so. i have it up here if anyone wants to see that on sfgov tv. i apologize for being unable to attend today's small business commission hearing. the call for jury selection at superior court. i hope to be able to

address the commission personally and to thank you for the work you do in support of our neighborhood businesses particularly retail since now more than ever we have need of strong advocacy to survive. i would also like to thank the commission for its recognition of some of my fellow book lovers. san francisco has always been a very vibrant literary landscape with bookstores at the center of an active neighborhood. unfortunately the cost of doing business in the city has seemed diminishing number of bookstores and it is a sad truth that once a neighborhood loses its bookstores it's very difficult to get one back. books inc. is committed to the neighborhood answers and we've always worked closely with the local schools and libraries. one of the first actions we took when [inaudible] the former owner left is the business was to move our main office and warehouse back into san francisco proper. they are less extensive locations to operate from we felt it important to stay centered in historic roots. the company and is for the community that supports our stores. we are

very proud to represent the city is the gateway bookstore at sfo. we are one of the only independent bookstores to operate on its own at a major airport. in closing my life would like to say it's an honor to be recognized as a legacy business, we spent very little time looking back. our challenge is to remain viable and relevant all lie in the future and with younger staff. just one more generation of booksellers and we will being in san francisco business for 200 years. my sincere thanks to michael tucker president of books inc. this concludes my presentation it am happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners, any questions? 200 years, that is a legacy. all right then we will open up to public comment. we have any numbers of the public of like to comment on this item? anyone from art-house? >> i'd love one speaker card, james washington. >> james, welcome.

>> good afternoon commissioners. the pleasure to be here today. my name is james bocce i: art-house gallery with a net-and we are thrilled that supervisor jane kim nominated us for legacy and i just would like to think richard for all his assistance in preparing us for this. we have been in business for over 20 years now and it has been a privilege to do what we do in san francisco, which is promote the careers of bay area artists. for three years running, we have been nominated and voted rest art gallery in the bay area by the bay area a-list and the largest component to our business aside from representing and exhibiting fine art has been to give back to the community. we

are totally committed to such organizations as the ucsf alliance health project which provides free medical services to people living with hiv. we also contribute generously to the san francisco decorator showcase which funds at university high school hospitality house, and kind of as you see an obligation, on and on. our hope is you allow us to be a legacy business and thank you for your time. >> great. thanks for coming out today. any others numbers of the public to comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? any comments or a motion? >> i will make a motion that to pass the resolution for art-house gallery and books inc. for approval to the legacy business. the second >> motion by commissioner adams second by commissioner

dooley. roll call vote adams aye dooley aye dwight aye ortiz-cartegena aye tour-sarkissian is absent yee-riley aye zouzounis aye that motion passes unanimously said seconds or one absent >> congratulations. okay on the next item >> moving to item number four discussion possible action to make recognition some board of supervisors file number 170156 winning code zoning map

production distribution and repair controls limiting transit orientated retail special use district and correcting height limits in that you and you disappeared ordinance amending the planning code and zoning map printed jim and massage uses in the production distribution repair pdr zoning district limited the transit orientated retail special use district which includes all parcels in pdr district along 16 street from mission street to park trailer of avenue a great guy limits on certain parcels urban mixed-use district allow for ground-floor pdr uses. affirming the planning artist determination under the california and our mental quality act in making finding of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of the planning code section 101.1 and finds a public necessity convenience and welfare under planning code section 302. discussion possible action item. presenters are moral--director of business development office of economic and workforce development and john and francis planning and urban designer citywide clinic division. >> welcome. >> hello. thank you commissioners. we do have a powerpoint for you today. i want to go over a couple of the components of this legislation and john will handle the last one. first off, as is all being done in conjunction with

regional continuing to find ways to protect pdr space here in san francisco. they can about how we can continue to further the pdr plan and encourage the preservation of industrial businesses. the first item that we have in this legislative package involves moving jim's massage establishments and massage for chair from allowable uses in pdr. we felt they didn't fit the jobs profile we are trying to incorporate in the pdr area. and that they had a number of others they were allowed. we do not need the special production that pdr provides. it does still allow for many sales service and retail uses the size limitations as currently exists in pdr so you do still have a lot of the amenities that neighborhoods are looking for in other business employees are looking for in their neighborhood. they're still

going to be allowed in this. we just are proposing the removal of a couple of uses. it's important to also note that james and massage establishments and massage foot shares currently in these zones and probably permitted will be allowed to continue as legal nonconforming uses. the not changing our business making a move anything like that. we also exempted projects that are currently in the planning pipeline so if someone has already begun this process were not going to change those pupils on the midway. and we took the legislation that was used to enable, as you guys may run member some legislation that said if there's an undeveloped or very underdeveloped pdr site, we would allow costs subsidize asian development of new pr by development of [inaudible] prolonged development of jim's in that category as well. so if you develop one third of new pdr space in that underdeveloped land, then we will allow you to develop two thirds of office were jim's, whichever you prefer before it was just office and we are broadening what you can cross subsidize with without

impacting them out of new pdr we bring online. the second piece of our proposal is the removal of the 16th st. special use district. this is created as part of the eastern neighborhoods. as a way to allow larger retailers larger format retailers to move into specific pdr areas. we are proposing that be removed and those parcels be returned to their original zoning use solely and that is pr one-g. this mcd has not resulted in loot large-format retailers and is anecdotally some people believed resulted in people not find signing longer-term leases with industrial tenants. by removing the-and were returning to their original controls will be encouraging the tenants in the original intention which is pdr tenants. it does continue to allow for small neighborhood orientated retail use as we discussed on the slide before.

the neighborhood was still have the ability to the accessory retail to pity our businesses or other small format retail. just a large format will not be able to come in and take a large building. then the last section before john presence on which is the changes to the mixed use item. >> good afternoon commissioners. this last piece as laura mentioned, is to amend the heights on a select number of parcels in the urban mixed-use you and you district to allow for greater ground-floor ceiling heights. while also allowing them to not lose existing developable areas. under-which would otherwise be allowed under the current height limits. so on the screen you can sort of see a diagram that hopefully helps to clarify . currently, in a 40 foot height limit for example, which is what some of these parcels are zoned currently, atypical story is 10 feet. but part of

the eastern neighborhoods plan was adopted a number of years ago put in a new requirement for 17 foot ground-floor heights in order to accommodate a more flexible spaces so that pdr particularly, could be-could move into those spaces and have more options, real estate options, in the city to move into. unfortunately, it created a conflict with the code. so in some areas like a 40 foot district for example in this diagram on the left hand side of the diagram you can see a typical building with 10 foot floors and they fit nicely into the 40 foot height limit, but when you then have a 17 foot ground floor requirements, you can only fit three stories into that height before you go over

the 40 foot height limit. so those parcels would either have to lose a store develop a height at the top or would be required to-or have to actually apply for a variance to have a 10 foot ground-floor, which is problematic for trying to further our policy of providing more pdr space for pdr uses in the district. so the second intent that this fulfills is to essentially encourage as i said, encourage construction of flexible ground-floor spaces from multiple potential users, and these can include pdr or retail. as you probably know many pdr businesses require this larger ground-floor use in order to have mechanical

equipment or other things that they need, higher ceiling floor. the other point i want to make is that the fact that prop-x passed back in late 2016 will actually result in requirements of the number of pdr spaces that need to be replaced on parcels that are going to be redeveloped. so we anticipate this conflict between the ground-floor height and the allowed use that we are and the allowed use that we are currently atto continue and see problems where applicants will meet the 5 foot variances even though there's a conflict in the code between these two conflicting priorities. the intent of the height increases not to allow for additional storage of housing. but rather to preserve global square

footage as it exists under current zoning. now we heard some concerns from some residents in the approach i wrote hill neighborhood around concerned that this extra height could be used to squeeze in and asked a floor of housing into a project. that's not the intent. that was not the intent of the 17 foot ground floor. it is not the intent of the additional heights that we are proposing. so we are actually in the process of doing some tweaks to the proposed legislation and will be presenting some modifications to the planning commission on thursday to the proposed legislation that will address some of those concerns about squeezing the extra floor of housing in. we have not been able to quite hammer out the details of it. we are working on and i would with the mayor's office and the supervisor

ronen's office was the other sponsor for the legislation and we can-we can send the modifications to the small business clerk or convey those in some other way before the planning commission once we nail them down. thank you. >> commissioners, any questions? >> i would like to hear public comment. >> any matters of the public that would like to comment on this item? come on down, man. join the show. >> thank you market thank you commissioners. my name is gwen kaplan. my business is a smelling on 16th st. between fulsome and harrison and i'm here representing the northeast business association. so we were surprised that any proposed regulations concerning

banning gymnasiums or massage establishments on our streets. however, we do get a very full explanation from todd rule folk and from one and express our concern that we were not brought into the process earlier nor was our small business commission on which we so rely on for anything that is said about-that would affect small businesses. however, after reviewing the legislation we don't see how it is at the meeting, the northeast business association, we really don't see how it is going to hurt any pdr businesses and we are not sure we see how it is going to help any pdr businesses. so we

are not asking for any amendment were asking anything, but we do want to be certain and that the planning department and the office of workforce and economic of element know that anything that has to do with business we would have businesses and our pdr districts we like and immediate heads-up. >> fair enough. thank you. any other members of the public like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, commissioner adams >> i do like this for the fact when you're changing the zoning going from the big-box stores to keep the pdr is because i do believe that some of the-i've heard this anecdotally-that there are some landlords were holding back long-term leases thinking they're building his can get torn down. they're going to build another best buy down there or something like that. this kind of keeps the character of the pdr in that neighborhood and we need pdr space in the city. that is a

big deal and it goes along with what's happening. so i totally would support this. i do ask though, if they make any changes on uses to do let northeast mission neighborhood association know and work with them. >> fair enough. any other common squeak okay. do we have a is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. to approve recommend to approve >> can we add in there any changes that they do contact, if it's okay you, commissioner yee-riley, that they contact any changes they work with northeast mission neighborhood association? >> okay. >> business association spews the motion by commissioner yee-riley to recommend approval by the board of supervisors.

and that the northeast mission business association be notified of any changes. as was the commission. >> and the commission, yes and we will be amending the legislation but we will make note of that because those guys of thing don't get amended in the legislation but we will make note of that in the legislative-in the response the official response from the commission. >> okay. we have a second by commissioner dooley adams aye dooley aye dwight aye ortiz-cartegena aye tour-sarkissian is absent yee-riley aye zouzounis aye that motion is approved six zero unanimously. one absent. >> thank you much appreciate. thanks for public comments. always good to hear the public. keep fighting the good fight. next item please >> item number five discussion

and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on file 17002 general plan amendment commerce and industry element guidelines on eating and drinking establishments. speed is amending the comments commerce and industry element of the general plan to update guidelines regarding the over concentration of eating and drink in establishments affirming the planning departments determination under the california environmental cardiac making findings consistent with the general plan and a priority policies of planning code section 1.01. discussion and possible action. presenters adam start the afternoon good as she said i am andrew ahrens*. >> aromatic posture second. everybody with some handouts for the commissioners. >> the item 4 is a general plan amendment there would no

specific americana cetaceans standards from the commerce and industry element. to use when eating and drinking uses such as bars and restaurants see conditional use authorize and summer control tower would remain in the planning code. so just first a little background with the general plan is. the general plan is like the city's constitution. it sets the goals and policies that are the basis for the city's land-use decisions. the general plan is required by the state of california is the official city policy. so it's mandatory and not just advisory. changes to the general plan can only be initiated by the planning commission but the board and mayor of course have final approval. the planning code is the city's land-use implementation document. so it contains specific numeric controls or specific control such as numeric that are intended to implement the vision's outline in the general plan. the planning code in the general plan must be consistent by state law. so today's

changes are only to the commerce and industry element of the general plan. the element is a conference of god for the public and private sectors when making decisions related to the range of economic activities that form san francisco's employment answer the space. it includes different sections such as the industry their time neighborhood commerce government health and educational services and visitor trade. this update before you today would only impact the neighborhood commerce section of the commerce and industry elements. so what the changes would do, they would remove specific numeric controls from the restaurant concentration in the general plan and also refer the reader to the planning code for what that obstetrician should be. so the text in the slider is crossed out. you can see we are taking away 20% or more of the occupied commercial front [inaudible] adding and over concentration of, and then in the bottom were taken out 20%

and say what is prescribed in the planning code. the ordinance would also move some limits that calls out specific neighborhoods for greater concentration and overly prescriptive spacing requirements. so while the text below would be demolished or deleted. however, specific numeric controls would remain in the planning code. and if needed there can be adjusted to better respond to concerns for individual neighborhoods. so in the planning code for conditional use authorization for ed nine drinking places the planning commission is opposed to consider the existing concentration of these uses in the area such they should not exceed 25% of the total commercial frontage as in linear feet. the immediate area in this instances three and her feet from the southern property.

so implementation wise planners would still evaluate the concentration of eating and drinking uses for conditional use applications. instead of 20 and 25% would only be 25% and instead of evaluating the consultation for the entire district which is called out in the general plan language the concentration is only within 300 feet. concentrations was to be used to inform that apartments recommendation in the planning missions decision however other findings public support and opposition and other factors would still be used in evaluating conditional use applications. so this 25% number is in a yes or no. it just one thing we look at when evaluating restaurant applications. so this is just sort of two visualize what were talking about here. here, we have two different districts. on the top is judah and on the bottom is taraval. judah is quite a bit short give me a quarter mile long and terrible is 1 mile long. then this is

what 300 feet would be. you can see it's a much more targeted way to a valuate the concentration. here are some of the examples of that. on the left-hand side there is judah and we are assuming there's a 500 linear feet of commercial frontage in judah. there's quantity and eating and drinking years there would take up 100% or the existing uses eating and drinking uses, take up 100 feet which would be 20% get the new restaurant without 100 feet so the new conservation would be 40 on the other side of taraval, which has read thousand linear feet eating and drinking uses currently occupy 500 feet were 16% and the new restaurant would have 100 feet so the new concentration will be 20%. so in the new calculation we would get a similar concentration for

judah because it's already commercial and you're looking at similar smaller area. so the new concentration will be 37.5% but if you look at terrible, a specific area that does have an over concentration of restaurants be way over 75%. so this is a way to look at more targeted controls on concentration and how they impact the economic diversity of neighborhood commercial district. so in summary, the ordinance before you reinforces the role of each document and this is really the purpose of why we're doing this. the general plan is supposed to be a policy document and the planning code is the implementation document. it allows concentration levels to be adjusted to fit the needs of individual neighborhoods. so right now, that 2025% cannot be amended by matters of the board of supervisors should their constituents want a different number. it provides a more

meaningful metric for concentration levels and ensures eating and drinking uses more evenly just to get it throughout the district anderson illuminates the need for planning staff to survey the entire neighborhood commercial districts to provide an over concentration numbers. that concludes my presentation. >> great. think. seems reasonable. how was it the general plan came to have those specific numbers in it, do you know? >> the element was done quite a while ago. i think the 80s on not entirely sure. there are some places in the code that did appear we do try to get them out and believe those are in the planning code. we also know 20% and it totally is extremely low number for restaurant concentration. most of the surveys we've done that numbers like 37-45%. not exactly much higher than 25. so 25% may be very low but we can go back and adjust that to more study more outreach depending- >> you could tighten it up if

you felt- >> yes. b was it puts the control in the code. it is intended and keeps the plan as a more of a conceptual document >> correct. >> okay. commissioners? commissioner dooley >> i've a couple of questions. so this would not impact any special use districts that have their own percentages >> no. you are correct it would not impact of the special use district. >> then i'm just curious what would happen in a district like the one you have for taraval which already has a 75% concentration when someone went in front of planning commission for acu, would they just be automatically turned down or is that still at their discretion? >> no. is also the planning commission's discretion. so sometimes certain restaurant uses really want neighbors so

you get a lot of people coming out saying we know we have too many restaurants but we really like this one. so the commission would take that into consideration. but it's not an end all be all it's not the only metric the commission uses >> right. but generally speaking if there's that high concentration within 300 feet, that would be heavily weighing >> 75% concentration would certainly have a lot of leeway on that. >> so-it would not preclude saying to you get down to a lower amount you can keep adding, adding, adding to that? that just at the discretion of the planning commission quick >> that's at the discretion of the planning commission, yesterday when neighborhood wants to bring new restaurants they should just prevent new restaurants. >> any other comments, commissioners? i'm all for cleaning up things. whether they decode or regulation. do we-public comment first. thank you for your present it in any members of the public don't like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioners, do we have any further comments or a motion? >> i make a motion to approve of item number 170002. >> second. >> okay. motion by commissioner adams second by commissioner yee-riley. adams aye dooley aye dwight aye ortiz-cartegena aye tour-sarkissian is absent yee-riley aye zouzounis aye the motion to recommend approval passed unanimously 6-0 with one absent. >> thank you, erin. >> very good presentation, two. >> yes, that was great. thank you. next item item please >> item 6 presentation and discussion develop rules and regulation to move a legacy business from the legacy

business register. presenter, regina dick-endrizzi office of small business >> have a document to pass to you. so when we pass the legacy business registry there's a couple items that we still had yet to complete but we did not want to hold that back from beginning to placed businesses on the restaurants were now beginning to address some of those items. what is before you is developing some rules, guidelines regulations around the consideration. or potential need to remove a legacy business from the registry. so i would like to-this is just a discussion item for us to begin to have some discussion for me to get your feedback. we are not in any urgency to pass

this. but there are things we need to work on. so i have put in the definition of a request or a requester may be a member of the public them at the board of supervisors, the mayor, nominated, and or the legacy business program staff. so there could be at some point a business may change their business model not so then they need to be reconsidered >> what about historic preservation commission because they do go in front of them as well? >> we can add them as one of the-under the definition of requester. >> of course that anyone can be a requester. okay. >> next is what might get some trigger to consideration of the business sense of shouting and shut down for more than two years based upon the criteria that set out in the definition

of legacy business except in the case of fire or natural disaster or other extraordinary circumstances. so things that are beyond our control possibly taking a look trying to find a new location, getting to the permits and things of that sort and course of the business keeps their business registration active, that can be given consideration. of course of the business completely close down and relocates out of the city, out of the san francisco than that would remove them from the registry. then a business logo no longer contributes to the neighborhood's history and or identity of a particular neighborhood or community, and the business no longer commits to maintaining the physical features or traditions that define the business including craft, coronary and artform. those last two things are pulled out specific from the

application for the legacy business. then, something to give consideration to is if the business sells to new owners, would we want to have them re-go through the application to ensure that the legacy-the new owners are retaining what is legacy about the business card then the procedures for the requester that has a concern regarding the legitimacy of a legacy business being on the registry and file request for reconsideration or removal of the office of small business. the requester is to cite the reasons based on one or more of the criteria that stated above in item number two

which i just read off. requester should include any documentation that supports the request for reconsideration or removal of the office of small business will review the documentation you provided written determination and hold the hearing at the small business commission for final determination that is-that's currently what i have in terms of thinking that completes the process. so happy just to hear any thoughts you have, things would like us to look into good >> yes. i think this is great. it's important that we put together a framework now that we have a legacy business registry and we gab and increasing roster of these overtime, that has evolution plays out, we will find that some companies may or may not continue to qualify in the we should have--we should have a process and a criteria for considering whether a business should stay in the registry or not. also provide a framework for any requests that might come to us to remove business for any reason. so that is not capricious or sort of random in

its-and how does him. so i support this effort to tighten up this part of the process. commissioner adams >> i just want to tell director dick-endrizzi this is really good. it spells it out and we don't know what's going to happen two years down the line. or, if there's a day where we don't get anybody coming to speak for public comment, we don't know. richard does a great job. the historic preservation does a great job, but maybe there's something we just don't know about until after the fact. so i think you did a great job with this. i really like it. >> okay. commissioner dooley >> i just want to talk a bit about one of the disqualifications is a legacy business sold to new owners. i

mean, most of these legacy businesses, especially the older ones that have been in business for 200 years or 100 years, were going to have new owners could i think we need to drill down a little more detail on that as to why that would trigger occurs once again, many-many times the owner retires and the employees-the loyal employees take it over. so i think we just have to add some more to that >> what i was thinking on that, i was thinking exactly what you are thinking. i think i can tell me if i'm wrong director dick-endrizzi it have a corporation instead >> we should just add some more [inaudible/off mic] >> right. perhaps what we could do is that the trigger is that when a business sells, perhaps then the staff, instead of taking it through the process perhaps staff can to do an initial review and analysis.

then, should it seemed there's a substantive change then as staff is one of the entities to bring forward to the commission a recommendation for removal from the registry, maybe we don't-we can make it a little softer in terms of adding a separate process for that situation >> i think it should always refer back to the defendant criteria for inclusion at the legacy business. in this particular case, for example, i agree change of ownership is something that needs to be defined properly. so if i may ask you director dick-endrizzi, or richard, what is the current criteria in terms of ownership for a legacy business to be considered as a legacy business? is it independently owned or honey ownership requirements? >> so [inaudible/off mic] know there's no definition around who

owns it in terms of the legacy business. what we do say-and correctly, richard-what we do say to businesses especially the current owner is less than 30 years old, or has owned the business (30 years, they really need to in their historical narrative how they retain the core elements that are required when they purchased the building and have asked that as they conducted business under the businessman. >> that's fine. let's take [inaudible] great example that was purchased by a large corporation. it would still be a legacy business because-i mean i don't see any reason why it would not be a legacy business simply because it's owned by a corporation with i like that corporation are not. [inaudible/off mic] likewise. starbucks had purchased-no one not in my mind be any reason to

move from the legacy business register. i think i actually think were kind of-my gut reaction would be to change of ownership is not in fact a criteria for being removed from the legacy any more than not a great year for being on the registry. i think the important thing here is that we want to be very specific that any action to remove a business refers back to the defining characteristics of a legacy business. now we can modify that definition over time. so if now we are saying we need an ownership provision in the definition of a legacy business then that is fine but there's no reason to have a provision

which calls out something that is not previously defined as a reason for removing it. i guess it has no reference good >> one we take up that sentence? >> i would say that needs to be removed unless someone wants to propose an ownership criteria for legacy business >> no. >> because it would only be [inaudible/off mic] >> right. so in and of itself is not a criteria for coming legacy business or being considered for movable from because what we don't want to be here adjudicating his people who don't like certain corporations that simply not our role. our role is to determine whether the business itself continues in the manner consistent with being a legacy business which started in its roots as an independently owned business. although times change but independently owned businesses can would not

survive as independent businesses just as hardware store sent to the ace join the ace co-operative. that should not disqualify them. they are still represented legacy business. so, good. i think it's important that we that that because otherwise were going to get ourselves tripped up by having no foundation on which to consider these things come in and we find ourselves debating about things that are kind of like well, okay. we're making a judgment call here. we would like to remove as much of the subject of as we can make it as objective as possible. grades. we will strike out. is there anything else in this that seems like it's not on firm footing relative to the definition that we set out? >> i've a question because i know we distinguish in the past the difference between the registry itself and the benefits that one might apply for once they're on the registry. since the mandate of the historical preservation

commission is that they want to keep a historical document showing businesses could so someone was to retire were closer business-i don't know-but still echo when mark placed. example cable car joe's it's not on here but i grew up growing up to the place and it still has a storefront for whatever reason even though it's close down. i would like to see some kind of documentation of places that have been around because just because they close down there not been legacy businesses. maybe obviously they're not quite receive benefits because they're not operating but i think for the state of the historical preservation >> legacy business hall of fame. that sort of a different -and interesting and different issue is sort of the historical

registry of business. there's a lot of business that don't exist any longer at all or no longer in the city. i think toby a different initiative for the historical society as opposed to the small business commission because we are here for the preservation and the >> he was operating >> operating business to help with the operating starting new businesses as opposed to the backward looking historical record. but if you want to depose that over to the historical commission >> what we could do is bring this up with the historic preservation staff and see if there's any interest. we can sort of jointly explore it and then determine whether something gets created and if there is room for the commission but we can if you're interested we can propose that. >> the promotional benefit of the registry is to encourage

people to patronize businesses on the registry because of the legacy status. so we don't necessarily want to point people to the ghosts legacy disappear we were pointing to the existent businesses will go spend their money there. all right, so we don't want to confuse people and have them look at the legacy registry and wonder the businesses are still alive. so,-by the way, criteria for being a legacy businesses that you are business. in continuous operation with a few minor exceptions. so it is consistent with our definition of alexi business that ceasing business for more years of separate stored very circumstances is valid criteria for considering removal from the registry. >> i'm wondering about one thing. it came up recently in the news which is clearly historic business downtown is in the middle of-they were

evicted and the property owner are now saying they are that business. so these things could come up again. i just kind of wondering where we are in that issue could spew out this will be change of ownership. once that is played out the ownership will either go to heaven the ownership of the trademark will either go to the tenant or the landlord if we can be legal in its definition today because both claim to be the lawful owner. so i think though, that, as long as it continues not only in name but in concept, per the construct of the legacy business registry criteria as they exist today that it can easily be qualified and it may be in a state of

suspended animation for time as they work this out. if that were to exceed two years, we could call upon the exceptions that was tied up in a legal dispute for example to make out longer. because a legal dispute can be as damaging as a fire or natural disaster as we all know. so that would be extraordinary circumstances. so i think, to your point, we preserve-we preserve it potential to be on the registry because the change of ownership itself is not criteria for a new venue. yes? okay. any other comments or observations about businesses that we know that face some event we have not considered? [inaudible/off mic] we will get any other comments by commissioners? seeing none, we will open it up for public comment. any matters of the public like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. this

is not a action item other than to say carry on and complete the definition and then we can adopt it into the rules. >> correct. thank you very much for your feedback. >> thank you for taking the lead on doing this and do the same for any other refinements that we might need in the overall process. grades. next item please >> item number seven approval of meeting minutes action item. the minutes for your consideration are the february 13, 2017 draft regular meeting minutes. >> commissioners, any comments before public comment we be was i just have one. i think it says am absent >> no, it says you came in. >> says absent on the minutes. you stepped out >> yes. for one of the action items in the vote you are absent.

>> okay. >> are you okay? good? [inaudible/off mic] that's right. any members of the public don't like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? >> i motion to approve the minutes is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor say, aye. [chorus of ayes.] opposed, say nay. that motion passes unanimously six and zero. one absent. >> next item please >> 5-0. >> thank you. okay 5-01 absent. thank you. that motion passes 5-0, two absent. directors report item number eight update and report on the office of small business on the small business assistance under department programs policy and

legislative matters announcements from the mayor and announcements regarding small business activities. discussion item >> so commissioners, they can i have been discussing the monthly report that we were going to provide you and they are now going to do that every other month get it's more substantive report but i'll provide some interim updates through the directors report. so in regards to the legacy business program. so one, i want to just note that today's the 30 days completion of the 30 days for the rent stabilization grants. rules and regulations the board of supervisors. so this week will be updating the website with the application. notify all interested landlords who party made contact with rick and then also notifying all the legacy businesses that are on the registry that the rent stabilization grants-we can now proceed with that. also, notifying working solutions and-- that the 30 days is over because they are going to be helping us with-helping our

businesses don't want-that need assistance with these negotiations especially for those that might be in the rent stabilization. then we have been meeting with some of the new supervisors. so last week with supervisor safai and this week with supervisor fewer. i've yet to schedule an official meeting going over the program supervisor sheehy. we also, leslie did a training program for all the new legislative aides even those who are new to existing supervisor's office. so we had eight out of the 11 supervisors offices represented at the training. so that was very good. we also have a meeting with the city agencies who leased to businesses. so the department of real estate, just

realizing we do need to set up a various specific procedure with them to check in before a business is nominated because, as often they are plans with city properties and so we want to ensure that we don't inadvertently put a legacy business on the registry and have a situation come up a couple years later down the road. so we are setting up guidelines and procedures to check in with our sister agencies just to ensure that there isn't any particular issue and then of course if we need to can help with some businesses assistance down the road. so those are things that have transpired since our last meeting with a legacy business program. then, today, i attended a meeting with richard howell rant and supervisor tang

who started discussing the implementation of the mandatory entryway program. it's going-it's taking a little longer to design some of the program materials. as one may guess, it's a complicated matter dealing with the ada and the federal and state. so we didn't meet with supervisor tang today and then, supervisor weiner has introduced a bill to cover-to work on a san francisco specific dealing with the issues around the crv, the redemption we been experiencing in our small businesses have been experiencing. so i met with the department of environment today to kind of talk about what's in the bill,

what we-it was an emergency bill, so i would say it's not complete. it still needs some input. so i'm very excited just by the fact supervisor weiner - excuse me - sen. weiner. i apologize sen. weiner has introduced a because it will help get some momentum when creating getting to some resolution and solution for small businesses around the challenges that they been experiencing dealing with buyback redemption that they are required to do. i think those are key highlights for this week or since the last meeting in less two of any questions that concludes my report. >> commissioners,, any questions? we have any members of the public like to comment on the directors report? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item be please >> item number nine

commissioners report allows president vice president commissioners report on recent small business activities and make announcements that of interest to the small business community. discussion i'm >> i don't have anything to report. other commissioners? commissioner ortiz-cartegena >> i was informed today on the way over of a couple sessions tomorrow sfmta is can hold a hearing about 50% participation on [inaudible] and arnold far office was ever informed. that's big time for us. so as a was coming over here i did a little research. their goal for this clear 2019 is what she 50% on all city projects which is similar to [inaudible] one the state national program for disadvantaged businesses. with 9% being race neutral and 6% being race conscience. so kind of like letting everybody know it's out there so though be a public hearing 4-6 at sfmta good also we should be really aware of this because we should not be hearing from the streets lack of a better word, about it.

>> okay. anything else? commissioner yee-riley >> yes. the san francisco city committee are going to -they're going for economic and goodwill mission to vietnam to ho chi minh city and requested some information of the small business office small business so thanks to director and carol for putting the material together and bring it with them to the mission >> when are they going? march? are you going? >> i was but i couldn't. then, also i attended the february 14 mayor's quarterly meeting. you were there, too. >> yes. >> anyway a lot of good-well attended, a lot of good

discussion and so we also set up the meeting with a new lease chief. i think sometime in march. that's it. >> excellent. commissioner dooley >> i am continuing to attend both the district 3 transportation meetings in cooperation with mta and now i am also meeting monthly with mta directly as part of a group to continue to explore problems on the street and transportation. >> any other reports commissioners? any members of the public like to comment on the commissioners reports? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item be please >> item 10 new business allows

commissioners today's new agenda items for future consideration by the commission. discussion i'm >> any new business suggestions? seeing none, any members of the public want to comment on new business suggestions? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item please >> sfgov tv could you please show our slide? >> as is our custom, to begin and end each meeting, each small business commission meeting, with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business and san francisco and the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop whatever question about what to do next. you can find this online or in person here at city hall.. best of all all our services are free of charge. the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns of policies affect

affect the economic vitality of small business and san francisco. so he need assistance with small business matters, are here at the office of small business. thank you. >> we have a motion to adjourn commissioners >> yes. i like your motion a motion to adjourn today in honor of resident mark dwight's birthday. >> happy birthday. [laughing] >> if nobody seconds were not going anywhere. all right. >> all those in favor say, aye. [chorus of ayes.] opposed, say nay. that motion passes 5-0, two absent in the meeting is adjourned at 3:14 pm. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>