pisano. up for a supervisor came, the late mr anthony knew when. supervisor ronan, the late mr jamie poole junior. and on behalf of the entire board of supervisors, board of supervisors, for the late aaron goldsmith and elaine lambright and former cyclist, mr kevin manning. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. this brings us to the end of our agenda. we will be remiss if we did not say happy belated birthday to our colleague jane kim who celebrated her birthday yesterday and we want to celebrate to you and welcome to the 40 club. is there any further business before us create. >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. [♪]he meeting.

>> president adams: this is the regular meeting of the small business commission, monday, july 9, 2018. the meeting is called to order at 5:32 p.m. we thank media services and sfgov tv for televising the meeting, which can be viewed on sfgov2, channel 78 or sfgovtv.org. members of the public, please take this opportunity to silence your phones. public comment is limited to 3

minutes per speaker. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. completion of a speaker card, while optional, will help to ensure proper spellings of names in the written record. please place speaker cards in the basket to the right of the lectern. speaker cards will be called in the order in which they were placed in the basket. additionally, there's a sign-in sheet at the front table. sfgov tv please show the office of small business slide. >> welcome, everybody. it's our custom to begin and end 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 to your questions about doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have questions about what to do next. you can find us on-line or in person here at city hall.

best of all, our services are free of charge. the small business commission is the official public forum to voice your opinions and concerns about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses in san francisco. if you need assistance with small business matters, it starts here at the office of small business. >> clerk: call to order and roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. president, you have a quorum. >> president adams: thank you. next item. >> clerk: general public comment allows members of the public to comment on matters of jurisdiction but not on the calendar.

discussion item. >> president adams: do we have any members of the public that would like to make comment on items not on today's agenda? seeing none, item is closed. next item, please? >> clerk: presentation on 16th street improvement project. it's part of muni forward and plans to allow zero-emission transit service into mission bay and allow the o.c.s. that powers or trolley buses on kansas street to third street. new bike lanes have been added to 17th street to create a continuous route from mission bay to the mission neighborhood. along with the changes to 16th street, the eastern end of the 22 fillmore route will shift to serve the growth in jobs, housing and hospitals in mission

bay. a replacement route is being developed to ensure service maintained in dogpatch areas. once finished, the street will be entirely repaved. discussion item. presenter is project manager, cathal hennessy, capital programs and construction, sfmta. >> good evening. after that nice, long introduction, i feel like he almost covered the presentation already, but i will go through a few more details of it, so if someone can bring up the slide for me. thank you very much. as mentioned, this is a muni forward project. the limits of the project are on the western edge is 16th at church and eastern edge is down into mission bay. as mentioned, it's part of the

transit effectiveness program, where one of the original goals of the project was to realign the 22, which is the element, the section of the map here in black, to realign so it would be on 16th street and in mission bay itself to accommodate the future growth and development of this section of the city. while in the development of the project, 16th street has been identified as a high injury corridor network, meaning there's been a lot of collisions with pedestrians and automobiles and road users along this route. so we're talking this opportunity to improve the state of along the corridor. once the project was started across all city agencies, there is an opportunity in which can>> john: the project, upgrading the water and sewer system along

the corridor. this is a busy map showing a summary of improvements. we're looking to install a transit-only lane starting at 3rd street, going westerly, all the way to 16th street and eastbound, starting ate bryant street between bryant and po potrero. we didn't have enough space to have a transit lane in both directions without completely eliminating parking on 16th. knowing the hardship it could cause to the businesses in that area, that segment of the original project was eliminated and we only focused on areas that we could fit it in with minimal impact to parking along the corridor. as i said, we joined up with other agencies, so it's a

complete street project. this is just one small segment of the overall corridor, but given the interest of time, we spent days talking about all the elements along the corridor, but this is a snapshot replicated where we're installing transit bulbs, upgrading the traffic signals along the corridor and also repaving -- also a repaving of the streets as well. this is a zoomed-in architectural feature of what this area could be. they will also know that many of the trees in this area are ficus trees, which have a large

canopy. one of the comments that we heard from the various members of the public is they said that 16th street was a narrow street and they wanted to see more sunlight come into the corridor. so we will remove some of the ficus trees and put in different species to allow more light. we're also trying to signify the history of the corridor and we are looking to install some additional features just to reflect some history of the corridor, like this is an overlay of the old stadium and there are elements that we can -- it's almost like a future to the past and looking to the past and also looking to the future. as i mentioned, we'll look at

transit lanes, along the corridor. and it will be going from third to church street. and into eastbound direction, potrero to third. from a community engagement, this project has been going on for many, many years. during the outreach process, we, the m.t.a., held four large community meetings. some in the mission area. some in the eastern edge of the project. i've also attended numerous community meetings with potrero boosters, the dogpatch. i've been to encnc. we've briefed supervisors. we've met with mbna. and working with our office of -- the mayor's office of economic work force development to make sure that we're reaching all the folks that we can within

the corridors. we've sent out fliers. we've had posters up along the corridor. we've had postcards in an on-line blog. we also have a project website by simply searching "16th street improvement project." it will bring you straight to the project page. from a schedule standpoint, again, kind of summarizes the steps we've taken. we started our outreach in 2014. we went for almost 1 1/2 years of outreach, gaining input from the public, plus the overall goal of the project. and then from there, we went through the legislative process, followed by the design phase, which kept us to issuing the documents. when we initially advertised this project, it was above what we could afford. so the city with its sister

agencies decided to split the project into two separate phases. the first would be potrero to eutaw street to mission. that project has been advertised and we have received bids and bids are within what's allowable. we're hoping to go to the sfmta shortly and the project would break ground in the fall. potrero to church streets, we are projecting to potentially advertise a project in the fall of last year, which would then lead to construction in the spring. given the density of the neighborhood and all the utility work, we're expecting this project to be a little longer, closer to 1 1/2 years. if we were to start work in february next year, it would be in august of 2020 by the time it

would be complete. continuing to work with all the neighborhoods so we understand that all construction projects have an impact to the community and the businesses along this area. so in addition to the outreach we have maintained, we will be going door to door to get all the businesses and we bring a master list of all the businesses that will be impacted, so we would then do a weekly update so we know -- so everyone has been informed to the very sequencing and stages of the project. the goal is to minimize the construction or to businesses during construction. and i know that the mayor's office of economic work force has issued some guidance in how agencies can support those goals in order to keep business open and operational in two phases of construction.

>> president adams: commissioner dwight? >> vice-president dwight: so you are moving the stop 1 1/2 miles from the location. so i won't have a stop. >> there will be bus service, a replacement bus service for the 22. a person within my agency is leading that effort, working with dogpatch and potrero boosters about where that should be. they've had presentations. there will be a replacement -- >> vice-president dwight: will it be simultaneously with losing the other? >> yes. once 22 is built out, the replacement service will be -- as soon as we're ready to move the 22 down, the other would come into play.

>> vice-president dwight: okay. great. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: how much is budgeted for the loss of businesses and small businesses in the corridor? >> i believe it's 3%, if i'm remembering correctly, is what the guidance is from the mayor's office, but let me confirm that number for you and report back to the commission. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: we've met side-bar from an advocacy standpoint in the neighborhood. there were suggestions and we recommended that for outreach also to be culturally -- use a different cultural lens, especially with the various latino and asian communities. and i'm wondering where we're at on that. >> that will still be part of our outreach. i know that we are to regroup with that group again one more time and talk through -- coming

to today's meetings is a first step and then we'll regroup and attend maybe other community meetings that's ongoing, so we can talk to and have the appropriate personnel there to speak and talk and explain what the project is and get your feedback about the project and explain when and where the work will take place within the project and having it culturally supportive. we are sensitive to that, knowing the history of the mission, especially the segment between church and south van ness. so we'll continue to work with your group on those measures. >> commissioner dooley: with the new plan, will it be mission street where there will be no longer the ability to turn left anywhere? >> can you repeat that?

>> commissioner dooley: will this project incorporate what they did on mission street, which they don't allow any left-hand turns? >> there are subtlies and differences between the mission street corridor and 16th street corridor. on mission, there were some forced right turns. there are no forced right turns on the 16th street project. there will be no left turn restrictio restrictions. many of those are in place and many are for safety reasons. it's a high-injury corridor. so we're rolooking to installed no-left turns and many already have them. >> vice-president dwight: is there a process in place for assessing business impact of these projects and process for deploying relief funds?

>> no. there is not an absolute set process in place. i know that oawd is working on establishing some. the commission does want -- >> vice-president dwight: but this project has settle-aside for this. >> it does, but to my understanding, we don't have a standard process in terms of x percentage of, you know, project funds, based upon number of business -- >> vice-president dwight: and how a business would apply for relief and how we would evaluate that application for relief. >> i've talked to jorge and we're trying to figure out when the best time month to present.

>> vice-president dwight: sooner rather than later. >> they are still finalizing some details. >> commissioner corvi: i came in late and i may have missed some of this. with parking on the street, are you reducing the number of available spaces on the street? and how will it impact deliveries to the businesses? >> so, again, very sensitive to parking on the corridor. we wanted it to be parki parking-neutral. some of the bus zones will be eliminated or moved from near side of the intersection to the far side. we looked at loading zones, always open to understanding

where double parking can occur. it's a fine balance to make sure you have the right number of loading zones and parking spaces so that customers can come and go, but we've been conscious to be parking-neutral. and we mentioned early in the process, there was a statement which we first thought about the project that we would do a transit lane in both directions that would have eliminated all the parking on one side of the street, but we dropped that segment, only the area that we know we have sufficient curb as it stands right now to put a transit lane in both directions. potrero to church, it's essentially what you see today. it's two lanes going westerly and one lane easterly. one of the westerly lanes is a transit lane. the parking, as i said, it shifts and moves around. when you look at the whole numbers from potrero to church,

we're maintaining plus and minus one or two spaces the same number of spaces there right now. >> commissioner yee riley: can you talk about your plan for the bicycles? >> yes. so if we could go back to the overall slide for a minute, the segment of 16th street from potrero, actually san bruno to mississippi, the original configuration was one lane each direction with a bike lane in each direction. in order to accommodate the transit lane in both directions, we have installed a new bike lane on 17th street, which actually connects to the existing bike lane on 17th street toward mission street. so the bike lanes have moved

from 16th street to 17th street. the segment that's different, once you cross caltrans, it remains on 16th. the street was wide enough to maintain the bike lane along the corridor. so bike lanes on 16th and 17th. >> commissioner yee riley: there's no biking on 16th? >> there's no bike lanes. bikes are not prohibited. they're allowed to be there. but most people feel more comfortable with bike lanes and that's the preferred route. it's still legal for them to be there. >> commissioner yee riley: thank you. >> president adams: any other commissioner questions before we go to public comment? my only thing on this is i will be able to go to a warriors' game and hop on a bus and go straight home with the 22

fillmore. you answered the questions on the parking and that was my big deal. in fact, i appreciate on your layout here that you do put down saying "no loss of parking." i really much appreciate that you did look into the parking, because we're losing too many parking spaces in this town and we need to maintain them. if there's no other questions, i will open it up for public comment. any members of the public that would like to make a comment on this project? come on up. you have a business on this. we definitely want to hear what you have to say. >> hello, commissioners. i'm gwen caplin, ace mailing. what we're most interested -- we've been brought into the plan

pretty much -- on a relative live consistent basis. we want to be sure that we're informed almost block by block of where they will be working, because we have big trucks and big deliveries. so although we understand the project, that's our concern is notification of what will happen in front of each and every business in a reasonable period of time to make that adjustment. >> president adams: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president adams: any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. based on our public comment just now, will we have like on a lot of projects that muni has, will you have a person on site working with the businesses, letting them know when things will be done? >> yes. we have a dedicated public information officer for the project, erin miller. she was not able to make it

today, but we will have that. and that's part of going door to door to get the names of businesses, so we can inform them once we get into a particular block and we can coordinate during construction what is needed to minimize the impact of businesses. >> president adams: or if there's a problem with construction, 1/3 a point person to go to. >> yes, a dedicated person. >> president adams: we'll make sure you are taken care of, gwen. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i want to applaud this particular project. theres been a lot of outreach. i think sfmta has learned what happened on mission street corridor and even reaching out to organizations like meta and how it impacts small businesses and being culturally sensitive is amazing. and i think the outreach sfmta is doing is great. however, i have to go on record -- and it's not particular to

this project, so nothing to do with 16 -- i strongly disagree with sfmta starting projects and then asking for feedback. what i'm saying, it's like, if i come to your house and be like, i'm going to make something through your living room. give me as much feedback as possible. and then you do an amazing job, along the process, block by block, day by day, but the process is to go and ask if we even want the project altogether. not just say, hey, i'm putting this fast lane through your living room and then, amazing feedback. i think sfmta is learning and growing and nothing to do with this particular project, but i'm going on record for sfmta in general. they have to ask. the impact on mission street, we lost 25% of small businesses and that was part of the report and part of what they expected to

lose and that has a bad taste in the neighborhood. that's in general, nothing to do with this project in particular. they should ask first before they even have a project in mind. >> president adams: any other commissioner questions? this is discussion item only. we thank you for coming. this has been very well, very helpful. we'll be watching this throughout the process, because if there's issues, we'll be the first to know. >> no problem. >> president adams: thank you very much. okay. next item, please. >> clerk: presentation and possible action to support san francisco's local business enterprise, l.b.e., small businesses regarding their efforts to maintain their businesses as it pertains to bos file 170205. ordinance amending administrative code to require a

citywide project labor agreement applicable to certain public work or improvement projects with projected costs over $1 million or where delay in completing the project may interrupt or delay services or use of facilities that are important to the city's central operations or infrastructure. discussion and action item. presenters are julianna sommer, priority graphics. >> this is the power point that julianna will present. in your packet, there's a definition of l.b.e. and establishing the program, letter from rec and park and public works. and the letter dated may 7 from the lawyers committee on civil

rights. we'll provide some updates. and then we have, i believe -- we have staff from contract monitoring division though will not present, but will be here to answer any questions. >> president adams: it says board of supervisors file 170205. who is the sponsor? >> it was then-supervisor farrell, who initially sponsored it. but then it was -- i don't know if dormant is the right word, but it was sort of -- a lot of discussions were happening. and then after mayor lee's death, i think supervisor safai picked up the mantel for it. >> president adams: okay. >> and this is agendaized a little differently.

you can put it on the legislation or -- you can take action on the legislation to make a recommendation or you can take action on a very specific portion, which is the l.b.e. program, which the presentation in supporting them in terms of what their recommendations are to make that recommendation to the board of supervisors. so there are numerous ways you can go. after the presentations and discussion and public comment, you can determine which is the best route for you. >> president adams: great. thank you. welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm julianna sommer, priority graphics, sign manufacturing company in san francisco. also vice chair of the l.b.e. advisory committee. chair is in the audience, miguel alarza. again, as director regina

advised, i will be presenting on this power point for the public. we don't have a digital copy to go through. there are copies over there. you have a lot of information that the director provided you today. a lot of information. a lot of what i call very heady information. we can really dive into the weeds because the devil is truly in the details when it comes to this project labor agreement legislation. and we can dive as deep as you would like to today. i will do an overview of 14b, which is the l.b.e. policy in san francisco. i'm going to go -- i will do an overview of the project labor agreement, maybe a quick definition and then some possible impact that the l.b.e. community has advised may impact us. we can start off by first talking about what l.b.e. stands

for, local business enterprise. the l.b.e.s in san francisco, excuse me, fall under the chapter 14b local enterprise program. that's what l.b.e.s call our bible. we have an incredibly, incredibly robust ecosystem of amazing small businesses that live under 14b, an amazing ecosystem of big-small companies that -- we're not very glamorous companies, we're sign makers, architects, engineers, landscapers, but the majority of us make this -- we make the city run. we're the ones out there building and maintaining this city. and we're very proud of that fact. just quickly on the first page, i went through some highlights. the l.b.e. creates a program to

economic justice for san francisco small businesses, especially those left out like women and minorities. a little history -- the l.b.e. program used to be the minority owned-women owned business program that was created under ed lee, our beloved mayor, ed lee, back in 1984. in 2006, the program was adjusted to be not -- it turned into the l.b.e. program. up until 2006, it was under the purview of the human rights commission. in 2011, it moved over to contract monitoring division. i sit on the advisory committee. i'm by no means an expert. we have c.m.d. staff here that can probably answer very specific questions about the ordinance, but can i give you an

overview about what it's like to be an l.b.e. want to skip forward to what i found was interesting. one of the purposes of the 14b program is that the public has an interest in focusing a vibrant network of businesses in san francisco. and san francisco believed we could accomplish this goal by assuring that small and micro businesses can compete for projects on a level playing field. i think it's interesting that san francisco owned the first business incubator program. it was this. again, i wanted to quickly talk about just the ecosystem. i also want to mention that there is turn within this ecosystem. for example, the cathedral hill hospital, which is being built

is being built and they were at one point an l.b.e. so there is constant turn of companies coming in and out of the system. the 14b program in my opinion is really a good greenhouse, right, it's really fostering an amazing number of plants living in this ecosystem, small and large. we can skip ahead to page 3. i wanted to talk about how one can look an l.b.e. these are high-level points. need to be in business for 6 months. owners have to have expertise and license in their category that they're applying to be an l.b.e. for. some of the businesses that you can be qualified to be an l.b.e., a contractor, service companies, trucking, engineers,

professional services, general services, suppliers. also want to talk about headquarters. it's the c.m.d., after you apply will come out to see if your headquarters, nerve center, within the city and county of san francisco. don't want to go through the entire power point in detail, but you can look on pages 5, 6 and 7, you have different categories. you can be an l.b.e. or micro-l.b.e. and the definitions of which category rests on your annual revenues over a three-year period, average revenues, i should say. page 7 -- sorry, the power point is not numbers, but page 7 is entitled, "here are the numbers." it's very fun and prudent to point out that well over 50% of our l.b.e.s are minority or

women-owned. it's a wonderful incubation program. so we can move forward about what we're here today to tack about a proposed labor agreement known as a p.l.a. i have commonly referred to as a p.l.a. i clipped on page 8 some highlights from the controller's report, controller's office provided a risk-benefit report when the legislation was first introduced by then-supervisor mark farrell's office. you could read the first bullet point, which is a definition of a product labor agreement. in that point, there were four main goals that the legislation was purporting to produce. and there have been amendments

to the legislation. an amended version was submitted in the june 20 g.a.o. committee. primarily, the stated goals have been that the p.l.a. will ensure there are no work stoppages, no strikes. that the p.l.a. is purported to help san francisco residents, that it will help veterans and that it will reduce the incidents of wage theft within san francisco. so this is what the p.l.a. is purporting to do. and the small business commun y community, there's a lot of concerns around the project labor agreement. we've had various conditiversat

with stake holders. and there are some serious concerns. we'll go back to that greenhouse analogy that i was using earlier. we all live in this greenhouse, this amazing greenhouse, this ecosystem that we have. it's wonderful. we have local hire, which we all adhere to. if we're in the greenhouse, local hire is a protective net that sits on us. and it touches on the issue of wage theft. we have labor standards and enforcement. i see them as our guard dog. they guard the greenhouse and outside the greenhouse. they're there and we respect and very much thank them for their service, being the guard dogs.

i'm afraid that the project labor agreement will be throwing the blanket over the greenhouse. maybe the biggest plants in the greenhouse can survive. again, we have turn in the greenhouse. some of the bigger plants may be okay and may live through it, but i'm afraid of the little plants, the seedlings, that are starting to grab hold. we need to understand fully how big of a blanket this could potential i will be. on the last page, there are many concerns, but there are some cherry picked, highlighted concerns. there has been a lot of conversation about any project

with a budget of $1 million or more will be notified. some say that $1 million is too low. there is concern about our core workers and how many core workers can retain if the p.l.a. is passed before we're subject to hiring from the union halls. how does the p.l.a. marry with local hire? we need to sit and understand how that will work out. metrics. if we're going to introduce the sweeping legislation, what metrics are we looking at to evaluate the success or nonsuccess. apprenticeship programs, where we get our apprentices from.

there's conversation around, you know, is there going to be limitation to what programs we can draw from. a very important point, typically project labor agreements are applied to large projects that have a finite end, beginning and end, so there is a very robust project labor agreement. the project labor agreement is different. it appears to apply to all projects in perpetuity. so there's no real end date. it's projects over $1 million. there are questions about what happens to our workers' pension money if the project is done and they've moved on. does the money stay with the

unions? is there a portability component that we can discuss around that? can our employees get their money back? we know that it was otherwise earmarked for the union. again, some cherry-picked concerns. we can dive deep and i welcome the commission to join us in diving deep. that's my presentation for this moment. >> president adams: thank you. >> lawyers committee on civil rights will present. >> good evening, commissioners. i have a document that i would like to submit to you all.

>> my name is cecile jacobs. we submitted a letter on may 7 to the board of supervisors with the proposed ordinance. our interest in this issue goes back to 1983/'84. there's been a long role in working with minority in women contractors to ensure contracting equity with the city. as a civil rights organization, we're concerned that the proposed ordinance would lead to plummeting numbers. that was the substance of the letter we issued on may 7, which should be in your packet. my remarks today are really to

explain the inherent tension between the labor ordinance and mandates under 14b. the graph at the top, you see a $1 million contract. we chose $1 million because that's the proposed threshold amount. all projects valued at $1 million or more would be covered by project labor agreement. what's being lost in the debate about this is that many people think that micro-l.b.s or l.b.s would not be affected because $1 million is a large project amount the problem is, contracting requirements under 14b require us to hit target of 40% r.b.s and 20% sub-goal for micro l.b.s. the way the ordinance is drafted, is that all of those, the 40% would be subject to the same requirements of the -- that

the general contractor would be required under the p.l.a. ordinance. interest is no exemption or carve-out. this could have devastating effects because of the sheer cost this would impose on l.b.s and micro-l.b.s with regard to paying into union pension and trust funds, prevailing wages, and many of the small firms to stay competitive in the tight labor market are paying benefits to the workers. they would pay double benefits under this, so they continue to keep benefits for their workers and that nuance is being lost in this if there is no carveout for l.b.s. we feel this would be disasterous. it would render most of these l.b. firms uncompetitive and they will not be doing business in the city.

this matters because question have a city-wide project goal. those are based on prior year availability numbers. if the numbers are crashing and there are no l.b.s available, those goals will be adjusted downwards. what you will see over time, the program will shrink until it faces an irrelevant program for the city. what we're saying is that we need it have an exemption from the project labor agreement ordinance. to us, it's the simplest way to deal with the issue is exempt l.b.s and micro l.b.s. it would be a carve-out and we ask that the threshold amount be raised from $1 million to $20

million. and so we ask that the commission consider this as a recommendation or even call for further study for the effect on l.b.s. thank you for your time. >> president adams: commissioner ortiz? [inaudible] >> we're ready for questions. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: i have a comment. i will give you a background. i'm a small business owner and i came up through the l.b.e. prague rachogra program. i lived it and breathed it. born in the mission. without the l.b.e. program, i wouldn't be here. i would not be able to serve here and volunteer my time. it's enhanced the quality of life of my family and generations to follow. i grew up in a union household. almost every one of my family members is a teamster.

so i know both sides. as an l.b.e., i'm upset that we didn't get to hear this ordinance or make a recommendation. this is crazy. $1 million in a city like san francisco, people don't understand, $1 million ain't nothing. $10 million really ain't nothing because a lot of the money is a pass-through. most of the money is not net to the small business owner. you can have a $15 million contract and only walk away with $100,000 to $200,000 net. this is crazy they're considering that. on top of that, on top of that, most l.b.e.s are mom and pop shops. when i started my business, it was my nephews, my mom, my dad, my sister. they don't need to be union. we're in the same pot. for me to contribute to a health plan or pension plan that's negotiated for them to carry the retirees and healthcare costs for one person, $1,300 for

healthcare, for one person. how can an l.b.e. afford that? that's crazy. it's not sustainable. i think people that are writing this legislation have never, ever had to meet a payroll in their life. they don't know what it is. like i said many times, i've skipped paying my mortgage to pay payroll. if you don't know that, don't write about it. l.b.e. is a program that helps small businesses in every gentrification of the city and now you will kick us out? so i'm appalled that we didn't even see this. i cannot fathom it. i'm upset. this is crazy. >> president adams: i agree. commissioner riley? >> commissioner yee riley: i have a lot of questions, but not for the presenters. i want to know, for instance, why they said $1 million as a threshold. and why are some of the areas

exempt? so maybe -- can we get someone to make a presentation at our next meeting or something? >> i can find out some of that information. it will be back before committee before the next meeting. >> president adams: okay. >> but i think that -- i mean, i do think our presenters could provide some -- can you provide some? they've been part of the discussions around the thresholds. >> we can certainly try. >> commissioner yee riley: do you know why $1 million was a magic number? >> no. we know that the building trades have provided some precedent with some other cities in california at thresholds

similar. san francisco has an annual budget of $9.5 billion. it's hard to compare with other jurisdictions that may have approved $500,000 p.l.a. with smaller annualized budgets than san francisco, far, far smaller. >> commissioner yee riley: $1 million is not a lot of money in san francisco, especially in the construction business. and i saw the letter from your committee and also another letter requesting to raise it to $20 million. is that something you have discussed with the team? >> we have put out -- there's been varying thresholds suggested by the community from $10 million to $20 million. i think originally the l.b.e.

community was looking for a $20 million threshold. it had been brought down to $10 million. you can tall it an olive branch to move conversations forward. but, again, a -- as she will advise, an l.b.e. exemption may help around -- if we're not successful in keeping that at a higher level, but it would certainly help the community. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena: another thing -- if you are a small l.b.e. and you sign a c.b.a., it stays with you. now you are a union house. and maybe you are a mom and pop doing driveways and little things like that, you cannot afford the union, especially if

family members are your workers. i recommend l.b.e. exemption period. $20 million sounds like a lot, but, again, a lot of the costs are pass-throughs i took on a city contract, not because i would make money with that contract, but the exposure and resume, where i could go to the private sector to say, i worked with a municipality. i could do this. sometimes it's a loss-leader. so $20 million, sounds like a lot, but it's a lot of pass-throughs that are, again, not making too much net. you are not taking home a lot. i recommend strongly an l.b.e. exemption, period. >> president adams: we can make that part of our recommendation. >> vice-president dwight: aside from the embarrassing failure to bring this legislation to this commission that represents small business and chartered by the city to weigh in on issues like this, not only that, there -- they seem -- our legislators

seem to be not heeding the expert advice of our financial people, not heeding the advice of departments that have alerted them that they will be adversely affected by this change in the law. and it's sort of unconscionable, that we would be proposing legislation when everyone around them is objecting to it and everyone, frankly, that they work for, is objecting to it. and that is sort of shocking to me. so it's a comment. it comes from here, though. as a small business commission, you have heard that we're distressed about the failure to consult us at all, especially when we have people on our commission that represent the very types of businesses that will be affected. that's why we try to have a diverse group of people up here, whether it's myself, manufacturing and retail, whether it's someone who has

direct experience running an l.b.e. that's why we're here. when we have obvious advice to give, on the industries we know best, because we are there industries, it's ridiculous that the commission even exists. >> commissioner yee riley: i'm curious as to why the san francisco international airport and the port of san francisco and some other agencies are excluded, exempt from the p.l.a. anybody know? >> there -- the airport has a project labor agreement, again, i'm not an expert on this. this project labor agreement would apply to rec park and

d.p.w. projects. the airport has an existing project labor agreement, which is contained to -- it's a major improvement project. >> commissioner yee riley: so they have it? >> they have a project labor agreement -- >> is there a question that the contract monitoring division can answer? >> different city agencies like the airport have p.l.a.s. you don't build a terminal for $1 million. it's for $100 million. so that's what a p.l.a. is for, large, complex project that interfaces with the public and has detrimental effects if there was work stoppage and flow of traffic is critical for city

government. so typically p.l.a.s think big, several billion, water improvement. all of that is $20 million, $30 million, multiple regions, multiple jurisdictions, multiple opportunities for there to be work stoppages based on different labor agreements. when you are doing a sewer improvement, there's not a single project worth less than $30 million. the reason to have a p.l.a. that comparable to the project and that's what p.l.a.s were designed for. that's why they're excluded, because they're drafted properly and within the realms that will pass legal muster. >> commissioner yee riley: they're not exempt. they are doing it? >> they have it.

m.t.a., you do a central subway, that's $1 billion. all of that has reasons for having p.l.a.s that makes sense. $1 million p.l.a.s make no sense. [please stand by]

. >> i am not partial towards union, i am partial towards making good small business decisions, and not allowing small -- microsmall business to make it their business sense that they want to scale to be