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 union is not right. it creates an undue burden on getting paid in 30 days. you guys are all business owners. you know what it means to make your contributions to your pension fund, to your health and welfare fund. most of us pay on a quarterly basis because we're small businesses. the unions require that payment in 30 days, irrespective of when the city's paid you. the union is barking down your back because you haven't paid for the union dues. when you're small and trying to grow your business, that's not the kind of pressure you need, and to be able to scale your business and say yes, this makes good business sense, let's go ahead and become collective bargaining.

and the other thing, and to your pointition commissioner, when you -- point, commissioner, you have to remember, when you join a union, it takes five years or 60 consecutive monthly contributions to be vested. and if you don't get vested, all those pension contributions go away, and you'll never see them, and you'll never benefit from those benefit plans because you never got vested. so if you do a one year city plan, that one year of contributions goes to the union. you never see them. i think that's diametrically wrong, and i think the city shouldn't organize or the union. the union can organize

themselves. thank you. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jim lau. i'm representing bay area light works. i'm happy to be part of the l.b.e. program, i think for, like, ten years now. i think it really helped my business grow, and i think this p.l.a. adoption would be really bad. i can't imagine what it would do to many businesses, including my own, so -- >> okay. great. thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: charles jones is next on the list, but is that susan smith? >> did you get the other ones in the bucket? >> clerk: yep.

>> excuse me for one minute. i'm fine. i've been in business for ten years. i've only had one contract. still got the contract down at the bank of america. i don't even know what it is, a 401-k. i used to be able to save money -- it used to be 120 days before i got paid, so i had to do all the work, i had to do all the paperwork. this is just hard. i'm from the bayview. i've watched my community suffer, literally suffer. when my little kids look at me, they say he's got his own business, they've got a real glimmer of hope. they're like, you've got money. man, i don't have no money. i still have to pay taxes, i have to pay workmen's comp, i

have to pay liability insurance. i don't even know what this p.l.a. thing is, but i'm dead in the water. i'm dead. i'm really just -- it's like i thought i got over the hurdle to now where i have my construction license. i started my janitorial, and i've got a d-38. it's like i'm on this journey here, and i know i've got obstacles. it's like the process of doing business. but this, i'm done. i'm 52 years old. what am i going to do? there's nothing for me to do, man. nothing. so by listening to you guys reply to how you all reply, you all just gave me a glimmer of hope, and i want to thank you all for that. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: next on the list is susan smith, followed by nicole -- looks like goatring,

and robert stewart. >> before i get started, i'd kind of like to tell you my experience with trying to bid on public works. i'm a woman business. i've been 15 years in business. i'm a mechanical contractor. i have been going around, fighting project labor agreements for a while, just trying to figure out why we can't get on jobs. there used to be a lot of the contractors show up at outreach, a lot of them. get certified, get through all the hoops and not be able to do it because of the building trades. they're very powerful, they will not compromise. the mayor of san jose tried to do a fair p.l.a., and they would not accept it and said they'd do ballot measures against private work, and he had to cave. the school boards are caving,

everyone is caving, because if they don't, they're being threatened by these building trades. it's wrong. the reason they're doing it, they're raking a lot of money off of these p.l.a.'s. they're taking a lot of money out of prevailing wage and other things that they get money off of. i pay -- when i do a public works job, and i pay prevailing wage, all that money goes to the employee. the wage theft is being done by the union contractors who have to give that money over to the building trades. it's -- sorry. every month, my crews work on approximately 20 restaurants in various stages of construction. i help build approximately 20 projects in san francisco. approximately 90% of my work is in san francisco. i have completed projects up to $1 million, which is nothing. that's just as a direct with the owner, $1 million.

half of my money is for equipment. i have very experienced employees, and i have a great safety record. core workforce requirement are a major reason why a nonunion business, especially a small business cannot successfully bid on a p.l.a. this ordinance allows only two of my own core workforce -- section 4 states that all labor except at least two core workforce shall be hired from the union hiring hall. that means i can only put two of my own employees on this job. how am i going to do that? the only reason the building trades allow two is to allow me to bid at all. it is a small business -- if a small business bids on this without understanding that they're going to be put out of business because you cannot step onto a job site with all these employees that you have never worked with and be

successful. the building trades are exempt to this core hiring requirement. it says -- sorry. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, members of the small business commission, my name is nicole goatring. i'm a member of a state and federally approved apprenticeship program, and we have members here in san francisco. our concern with the project labor agreement is that under this project labor agreement, those -- those residents aren't even going to be able to work here, and our apprentices as well who live in the city are going to be excluded from this agreement because of where it's written, the language in section 5, says only apprentices from joint apprenticeship programs can

work on these projects. well, that excludes apprentices from workshop programs. even if you have one to five to ten to 20 apprentices that are in those local programs, they are now excluded from being able to work here and from being able to get their opportunity to be a future l.b.e. and what have you and move up through the ladders. our members are of all sizes, small, medium and large size general contractors and subcontractors, so we would suggest that all core employees or all residents of san francisco should be able to -- or should be exempt from the p.l.a. so they would be able to work on these projects. there are some other cities that have p.l.a. policies in place, and their bids are coming in at all kinds of 50 to 60% over engineers' estimates. they're getting hardly any

bids. they're having to throw out the bids. it's just not -- it's not a good business model for the city. what -- there was a question about why they're being used and what about the threshold? well, what they're being used as is they're a marketing tool by the building and construction trades to lock up the construction market. so currently, today, you have union and nonunion contractors, general and subs who do work side by side on jobs all the time without any issues, and i would recommend that the city does not legislate this. let the companies as was mentioned earlier, get to the point where they decide that they want to do this, that that's the best way for the companies -- or the workers themselves to choose. the workers right now are choosing not to be union, and they're the ones to be able to choose whether or not they want to do that at that time. thank you. >> great. thank you for your time. next speaker, please. >> clerk: robert stewart, followed by hermann lee.

>> my name is robert stewart. i'm a superintendent with helix electric. the speaker before me already began to talk about section 4, which is the two core workers and the rest of the workers would have to be union workers, so i'm not going to go over that again, but i'm just going to give you an example just how disastrous that would be. if i had ten workers on a project, eight workers would be guys that are out in front of my jobs picketing, striking, the same guys who flatten our tires, scratch up our trucks. those would be the exact same people coming in, and i would have to depend on that. how smoothly would that go, honestly? that would be financial suicide for any company. imagine how that would actually go -- as well as for the customer. that would be a wreck. so i would ask you to take that

into consideration because from where i am out at ground zero at the job sites, i'm just saying, honestly, it wouldn't work. we'd be dead in the water quickly. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: hermann lee, followed by jim lazarus. >> good evening. my name is hermann lee. i'm an electrician at bay area light works. i've been there for over ten years now. born and raised in san francisco, visitacion valley area. i don't want to join a union. i don't want to be forced to join a union. i don't want to join a union. i like having my wages go to myself or my wife and kid. i don't want to have to pay dues to the union, have a portion of the check go to the union for dues and have multiple bosses. i just like being nonunion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good evening, commissioners. jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. we have supported in the past project labor agreements. we've endorsed them when they've come before the board of supervisors for approval when they meet the test of the boston harbor case from the u.s. supreme court which said major projects that are time sensitive that meet the federal requirement can have a union bid. boston harbor gig, airport terminals, clearly the type of programs multimillion dollar or billion-dollar programs that project labor agreements were designed to serve, and to serve the public interest. what we have here is an obvious conflict between serving the interests of small business and

local hire and the unionization of all city contracts. i think what this commission should ask for is certified l.b.e.'s in san francisco should be fall under a p.l.a. ordinance. that is in direct conflict with the goals of the city since dianne feinstein was mayor to foster local minority and women-owned businesses. you don't have to be antiunion to get to that position, you have to be proemployment, prosmall business to get to that position. so i urge this commission to make it clear to the board of supervisors, one, that somehow, something fell through the cracks, and this legislation a year ago didn't come here. and secondly, that the city's primary goal in this case should be the protection of small business while at the same time requiring large contract p.l.a.s, no doubt about that.

but if you're bitting with a job -- bidding with a job with a local small business, that should take preference because that's a priority goal for the people of san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> next, gwen kaplan followed by baird fong. >> thank you, commissioners. ace mailing was founded in 1978 by my mother and i, and we were in the first group in 1984 to be certified a woman owned business. i just want to say to commissioner ortiz, i agree with every sipping will thing you said. you did encapsulate everything i wanted to say. it's very hard to imagine as a

past president for eight years of the small business commission here that this has not been brought before us until now, so i agree with everyone who is very upset and concerned about that, and i want to say that being an l.b.e. was very important to our business. we were a w.b.e., and a couple of years after we had won a small contract from the city, dianne feinstein about present -- did present us with the woman entrepreneur of the year award. so it makes sense for a small business to be able to do business for the sense, so i would like to thank you, commissioner ortiz, and thank you, commissioner dwight, for saying how could this happen to be at this point without having had the small business commission voice for us.

thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: next is baird fong, followed by maria brenis, and that's the last speaker cards i have. >> okay. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is baird fong. i'm a san francisco native. third generation, actually. my great grandpa served as a servant for a home in pacific heights. my grandpa had a laundromat on divisadero, and my father did restaurant work all his life, and we all know the kind of hours and days they had to work. but i had the privilege of getting an education and joining the human rights commission back in 1983 and serving as a public servant to help on the 12-d ordinance to help define what are the problems here in city

contracting, to define programs that we could implement in the city to help correct past discrimination. and through -- as miss summers-choi stated, through each ordinance, i had the privilege of working through those and getting input. gwen might have been one of the compliance officers who did the site visit to confirm. we got a local business here that's really here in san francisco and helping employ and provide economic circle to the community. well, over the years, you know, about five years ago, i was part of the c.m.d., and last year, i retired, so i'm speaking as a person of experience, not as an official worker with c.m.d., but also, over the years, we also certified so many firms, that the first language of their owners may not be english, and

many of them employ -- many san franciscans, their first language at home is not english, and many of them actually all want to reside and stay here in san francisco, and their kids go to school here. so it is so important that we make sure that we don't put up another barrier like we used to have that helps with -- would prevent our minorities and women owners and workers from growing and developing here in san francisco. so i wanted to just restate -- restate the points that we want to make that this is not a project. why is it ad infinitum? to me, it's like creating a broken ladder, a ladder that has two prongs and no more rungs on the rest of the steps so. i hope that you will help us,

to put in a strong recommendation that would have this l.b.e. exemption to make sure this is retained. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm maria renas. i'm part owner -- my husband and i are the owner of renas construction and electric, inc; and we were certified in 2006. we work with the city for 12 years now. we work with d.p.h., and muni, and we work as a general contractor for small business -- for small contracts and as subcontractors for big contracts. the 1 million is not even

within our reach. [inaudible] >> -- so if you could help us get an exemption as an l.b.e., we are a minority small business enterprise. and also, with a -- and for our performance, i am proud to say that we have never caused of city any stoppage of work, and we always complete the work on time. so their statement of the stoppage and preventing any delay, this is not our record, so please help us. >> thank you. anymore members of the public? >> good evening, steven cornell. i'm here representing the polk district merchants.

i just want to reemphasize what i heard up there from a couple of other speakers. i think it's ridiculous, if any legislation is for small business, this is it, and it hasn't been referred to the small business commission, it is an insult to the small business commission. as gwen said, we are all past presidents of this commission, and this is what we were built for, to review small business legislation. that is something that should be added to all the other arguments about this tonight. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> scott howbe. i don't want to repeat what's been said, but i want to make it clear, the commission was not created legislatively, the commission was created by the voters of san francisco. and when the voters passed this measure, it was to hear lemgs

lati -- legislation and to hear things that help small businesses. that was the reason it was created, and to help the voters. >> thank you. any other speakers of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank everyone that came out and spoke today. i very, very personally, and i know everybody else on this commission feels the same way, appreciates your comments. i just want to say thank you for coming today and speaking on this item. okay. commissioners? commissioner dwight? >> vice president dwight: yeah. for those who came up to speak, i know it can be hard to get up and speak in public. some of you had written prepared comments and didn't get a chance to get through them. by all means, submit those to us because they will become part of our record. whether you speak here or whether you write to us, that all becomes part of the record, and we are able to use that on your behalf as we express our objection as a commission.

you know, i think as a small business owner myself, i have bragging rights to the customers that i work for. and l.b.e.'s have bragging rights to one of the biggest customers that they have, and it's the city and county of san francisco. why would you go through the pain and effort of becoming a certified business to be able to work on those projects if you didn't want to serve your city and have the bragging rights for doing so. to rip that rug out from under people that have worked so hard for so many years, some of you decades of work on behalf of the city, is just a travesty, so we'll see what we can do to try and prevent that from happening. i think, personally, that we should be advocating for an unqualified exemption for l.b.e.'s. >> i would agree. would anybody like to make a motion for that? >> vice president dwight: i move --

>> go ahead. >> vice president dwight: i move we recommend an unqualified exemption for l.b.e.s. >> second. >> clerk: does that include micro-l.b.e.'s? >> yes. >> yes. >> all l.b.e.s. >> clerk: okay. and second was -- >> commissioner dooley. >> okay. we have a motion by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner dooley. are you ready for a vote? okay. roll call. commissioner adams? >> vice president adams: yes. >> clerk: commissioner -- one moment. corby? >> president adams -- i am requesting -- >> this is the vote. >> oh, yes. >> clerk: commissioner dooley? >> yes sk. >> clerk: commissioner zouzounis is absent, the motion passes with one absent.

>> we will make sure this gets before the commissions. this is very unfair to you, and i just wanted to say kma commissioner -- what commissioner dwight says, you are the backbone of this city and what makes this city run, okay? and to me, to have -- this is a slap in the face, and we need to do everything we can to protect you and your businesses and your livelihoods. so again, i want to thank everybody for coming out tonight and speaking your mind. if you have comments that you did not get to say here up front, please give them to rick here, and they'll be part of the record. so thank you very much. [applause] >> next item, please. >> clerk: item five, approval of meeting minutes, action item. in your packet are the draft regular meeting minutes from september 11, 2017. >> all right.

now, this is -- >> go ahead. >> president adam, i am requesting recusal from voting on the september 11, 2017 meeting minutes as i was not on the commission at the time of the meeting. >> okay. public comment on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion, voice motion to recuse commissioner corby. >> we have a first and a second. >> okay. so is there a motion? >> i motion it first. >> i second. >> all in favor? >> okay. motion passes, 5-0. that was motioned by commissioner adams and seconded by commissioner yee riley. okay. so the minutes from september 11. okay. and so now -- >> now, the remainder -- >> now, we can do the minutes. >> well, we have public comment. >> do we have any members of the public who would like to

make comment on the september 11 minutes? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> wait. >> okay. >> i just want to say for the september 11 meeting minutes, that my last name is consistently misspelled. just a small thing, but -- >> we will -- so make a note to that, motion to approve with the correction of commissioner dooley's spelling of her last name. >> thank you. >> move to approve the minutes with the correct spelling of commissioner dooley's name. >> so moved by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner yee riley? all approved? all opposed? so the motion passes, 5-0. >> all right. >> next item, please. >> item six, director's report, update on the office of small business and the small business

assistance center, commission activity, department programs, policy and legislative matters, announcements from the mayor and announcements regarding small business activities. discussion items. >> so commissioners, the director's report is under item number six in your binder. so a report out from the accessible business entrance. so we're now getting biweekly reports from the department of building inspection just giving us updates on how many of the check lists -- so there's the check list that the proper owner needs to submit to d.b.i. to say that -- to classify them which category they fall in. so we should definitely be seeing, obviously, an increase in categories -- as exempt category and category one, those are the ones that are due january 1, 2019. and then, category three is july 2019. and category four is, i think, january 2020.

so i'll just periodically reporting those just so you have an idea. at the office, we are beginning to see an increase in calls from small businesses who are also the owners of their property, so just feeling a little more comfortable talking to our office to really kind of understand sort of how they need to navigate this regulation and what supports are out there for them. so we've been having conversations with them. and then, we are also getting calls from businesses who the property owner is saying you need to do this, you need to deal with it. and i would say 95% of these businesses are on month to month -- they're month to month. so they feel -- they're very concerned if they give any push back then they may lose the opportunity to stay in their space. so we're working on that. we're working with those businesses. and then,