initial spending limit, and they could not exceed it, and that that would be the same for staff proposal, and that's the heart that the spending limit is. the point i tried to make in the report is there's a lot of value in the initial spending limit. there's not a lot of value in the incremental lift. >> chair chiu: i think that is the point that we're hearing in the testimony, and, you know, it is useful to have people who've worked on campaigns, the argument that you're making that it influences the way that they structure their campaign spending plan at the outset because they don't know when they might have permission to raise and spend more. but that time factor that

you're referencing as having an effect on expenditure is the same argument that you're making that ultimately limits the amount collected and spent overall. so i guess i maybe need to go back and understand the math a little bit better and the chart. it does, you know, require us to contemplate whether or not having just a one incident, you know, no limit versus drawing out the time within which people will not know whether or not they're going to have a free -- free ride will collectively reduce the amount of money in campaigns. i mean, i think that that -- that's the issue that they're bringing to us and that we need to -- those of us that have never run a campaign before need to understand better. and i hear what you're saying,

that at the end of the day, it's not really -- it's not making a difference, we're just constantly raising it. especially when our limits were $10,000. it was just a -- i don't know anybody else, but i was getting an e-mail every third day, raise the limit, raise the limit. and it just would seem to be completely inefficient and just kind of make us look ridiculous. so i'm all for changing it, but i do want to -- i think that some of the points that they're making about the time value, constraining -- and then i have a question. i don't understand the concept of basing it on expenditures. the question that if we don't base it on expenditures, that people will no longer have to disclose their contributions, is that true? >> so the issue about

disclosure, i think is fair, and deputy city attorney shad and i proposed an amendment that i'm going to propose next month, which is to change section 1.152, when the candidates file their threshold statements, threshold reports, they need to continue to disclose both information and expenditures, as they currently do. we had a conversation that we thought that language should be strengthened, that both information and expenditures should be released. >> chair chiu: okay. >> commissioner renne: but why put it on contributions raerth than expenditures if they have to disclose both? >> right. the reason is a few times during the election -- in the elections in 2018, there were instances where one candidate's spending limit would be

increased. when that happened, let's say there's extra money in their account that they're not allowed to spend. and now that the spending limit is increased. we now have to count those funds. whereas previously when they were in excess of the spending limit, we don't have to count them. we only count contributions up to that candidate current spending limit because you can say they're not in the race, they're not allowinged to spen the money. the candidate would fund raise $1 million, we would have to count it all, even though they are only allowed to spend $250,000. that's why when you count contributions, only up to the spending limit. but when their spending limit goes up, you have to count that extra chunk of contributions. that makes it seem like the candidate has more money. that can automatically increase

the spending limit of another candidate. that happens a few times during the election. that caused a lot of concern and confusion. you can say that candidate's going to probably spend the money any way, and the spending limit would go up later, but there was a lot of concern well, the candidate whose spending limit just went up should have the ability to decide whether or not they wants to spend the money and in so doing raise that opponent's spending limit. so it's to prevent this automatic kind of ping pong effect where one razor lift do a spending limit would -- one raise or lift to a spending limit would cause all the spending limits to go up. >> chair chiu: because all the money is not spent. >> right.

>> chair chiu: if they raise the money, it's in their campaign war chest, and you're saying we're not counting that in the first instance? we don't know what that number is until the spending limit is raised? they don't have to report contributions? >> no. under the current approach, we do know how much they have. when they file their threshold reports, they have to report -- if it's a supervisorial candidates, it's 10,000. >> regardless of the spending limit, so we would know if somebody has an extra $1 million in the bank and was just waiting for the spending limit. >> that's right. that's right. >> chair chiu: and if we count based on expenditures, you're saying based on your amendment, we would still know that they had that money in their bank account. >> that's correct. >> chair chiu: okay. i might have to read your report three or four times before i really understand the -- that inside strategy thing and why i'm not sure i

understand why it changes the games, the counting expenditures. >> what about taking the greater of expenditures or -- >> right. that's another approach. some jurisdictions will count contributions or expenditures, whichever is greater. you can do expenditures, you can do contributions, whichever one is greater. it wouldn't solve the issue that was identified because if the candidate has more contributions than they're allowed to spend, contributions are going to be higher. so you're counting the contributions, so that same thing would happen, when their spending limit goes up, their contributions are later than their expenditures. we're going to count contributions. the same thing would happen where it would trigger the automatic increases. >> chair chiu: any other questions?

okay. >> mlet me ask you this. did we vote on the motion? >> chair chiu: no. >> we have a motion that's pending. i've already spoken on the motion that's pending, but i assume -- [inaudible] >> right. yeah, but i thought we were then going to discuss agenda item number five. >> no, the public comment was for agenda item number five. did you not give your comments? >> well, i just was going to say something very brief, and i thought that if that violates the rules, i'll make them next meeting. >> well, if i ask you what your comment -- i mean, what -- what your comment is, i can -- i can -- >> well, i was going to

snythesize an item that was on the floor. >> chair chiu: okay. i can't give you a chance to ask a question, but i can give you a chance to speak about what's on the floor. >> is there a jurisdiction that offers a hybrid limit of, say, 10,000 on the first go-round, and then, they raise the cap to 50? do you happen to know if there's a dual or a hybrid system anywhere in the united states. >> everybody's shaking their head out here. >> well, that might actually give you your incentive system to suppress or incentivize lower spending while you then don't let the public or the press forget the fact the limit has been exceeded when you

notify them through press release or whatever every $50,000 so that we do keep the eye on the ball and the campaigns know what's going on. otherwise, we may lose sight of the importance of this concept that we are supposed to be capping or disincentivizing excessive spending in an election. >> chair chiu: thank you. all right. so we have a pending motion to take up when commissioner lee is able to join us, and we would take action at that time. and it was seconded, so all in favor? [voting] >> chair chiu: against? the motion is carried unanimous unanimously. >> vice chair kopp: before we leave the item, madam chair, but the staff, before the next

meeting, i would like information about the number of cities with charter cities with public financing in california which use the expenditures as the measurement, that use the contributions as we do, as the measurement, and use a combination as the measurement.

>> commissioner renne: -- so that we have something concrete to consider as alternate proposals. >> and i'd like to add onto what commissioner kopp requested, mr. ford, that you could include those communities with a stair step method, and i think having it in a chart would be very helpful where the cap is just lifted and the criteria met. thank you. all right. moving right along now, agenda item number six, discussion and possible action on monthly staff policy report, including review and possible action on quarterly policy prioritization

plan. >> thank you, chair chiu. i won't run through the report. i think it's pretty brief and state forward, but if you have any questions, i'd be glad to answer those. >> chair chiu: any questions from -- for mr. ford? >> vice chair kopp: i have a question on the pending ordinances in san francisco, anything more up-to-date than is set forth on page three? >> no, i don't believe there are anymore updates. >> vice chair kopp: okay. >> chair chiu: well, i'd like to congratulate staff on the whistle blower connection. it goes into effect on the 20 -- >> yeah, it's already in effect. >> chair chiu: okay. wonderful -- oh, i thought it was january 20. so i noted in your report that

the commission approved it on -- last year almost to the day, so it's great to have that be in effect. so public comment on agenda item number six? >> larry bush speaking. i hope that you have an opportunity to revisit the whistle blower ordinance, because what was passed was not voted for, and that was not what was raised by the city employees. for example, we had an extentsive conversation about what's going on at d.h.r.,

which were not considered here, so you might take another look at what those things are. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. anyone else? >> vice chair kopp: i have a question. >> chair chiu: commissioner kopp? >> vice chair kopp: that pending senate bill 71, does the staff have a position as to whether the commission to make a recommendation to the mayor or board of supervisors in support of the bill? >> not at this time, no. >> vice chair kopp: could you have such a recommendation by next month? >> i could, yes. >> vice chair kopp: i'd request it. >> chair chiu: okay. thank you. agenda item number seven,

agenda on enforcement report. >> thank you, chair chiu and commissioners. this report reflects a few changes in light that commissioner kopp made at the last meeting. we've provided additional statistics to those that the department usually provides. i'll remind commissioners, this is with a staff of four. that would be me and three investigators. you'll see, if you compare those statistics to the -- this -- the prior month and this month and the prior year, we do have now fewer matters in preliminary review than we had a month ago, and i think what

counts in part is the executive director and i are catching up with the diligence of the investigators. their ability to review matters exceeds our ability to review their work. so we have fewer matters in preliminary review than we had a month ago, buff you'll note that we have substantially more than we had at this time a year ago. although the average age -- the average amount of time it takes for staff to get through that preliminary review is more or less holding. it is slightly above where we were a year ago at just over six months. >> mr. pierce, i have a question. i think you and the team are working very diligently to reduce the backlog of old cases. and i note that the number's fluctuating, so it is, you know, 5.5, around six-month time frame. what are the factors that goes into the time it takes in order to get through that preliminary

review? >> so get through an individual preliminary review or all of them? >> so what is causing it to take the six months, roughly to complete the preliminary review and what are some of the things that you can do in order to reduce the time? >> i think the first answer to that question, and there may be several, is it does not take six months for staff to conduct a preliminary review. it might take an hour, it might take a week, but the time frame that is reflected here includes the amount of time that staff is not conducting preliminary review. so if you look at statistics reported in the attachments. for example, if you look at page six, attachment one, the age of matters in preliminary review, you'll see that we have 21 matters that we have received within the last three

months awaiting staff's review. again, we have 21 that we have received between four and six months, etc. so because we have 92 in total, what that means is practice is that many of them sit idle until staff has an opportunity to turn from older matters sequentially to those that we have received more recently. you see twice as many matters awaiting preliminary review in that time period, seven to nine months, and you'll note in that window, that was the june election, we saw an increase in the number of complaints at that time, and that's because the election, election candidates, interested persons,

you'll note in the second graph there that fully 50% of the matters still awaiting staff's preliminary review are in the campaign finance context. so that would be the first answer to your question. as to what distinguishes between what might take an hour as opposed to what might take a week, staff can dispose of many matters quickly if the complainant has not alleged matters within our jurisdiction, and we get quite a few of those complaints. there's some confusion on the part of the public or on the part of city employees about what precisely the ethics commission does. other times, staff can dispose of a complaint within an hour, for example, although the allegations might be within our jurisdiction, it's clear that they express opinions, and that there's nothing that would make those allegations plausible or colorable. there's nothing -- no additional indicia to

substantiate them. when staff might spend an entire week on preliminary review, it's because there are additional indicia, but staff has to do additional work to ensure that the complaint is colorable. but beyond that, as i mentioned, when investigators write a preliminary review report, it's going to go eventually through me. i'm going to have to review it, and if they've proposed to dismiss a matter, in addition, the executive director will also have to vote to review it. >> thank you. >> turning back to the first page, we do have this month more matters open than we had previously and substantially more than we had at this time a

year ago, but once again, the average amount of time that it takes us to get through those matters is holding about even. the next item in this report refers to the amendments to the whistle blower protection ordinance that mr. ford mentioned during his report and that mr. bush remarked upon in public comment a minute ago. i have provided a summary of what those changes include. i will not repeat them here because you yourselves passed that ordinance, so you'll have some recollection of what they are. but i will note from page three that if -- a couple of those amendments in particular we anticipate may affect the workload of the enforcement division. one, as you know, is that the amendments expand the protections of the ordinance to city contractors and employees of city contractors, so effectively that expands the class of those who might complain to the ethics commission, and assuming that

city contractors or city employees believe that they face retaliation, we can anticipate possibly receiving morcomplaints than we have previously. the other is that the amendments to the whistle blower protection ordinance expands the scope of what qualifies as protected activity. so staff, in reviewing complaints alleging retaliation frequently dismiss them on the basis that there is a significant jurisdictional defect, and often that defect is at the outset, a complainant cannot show or prove that they engaged in protected activity, which is an element of proving a claim of retaliation. that is not something that would change by virtue of investigation, so we dismiss a number of those complaints at the outset. the changes to the ordinance by cure that jurisdictional defect, and the result may be that staff investigate as

opposed to dismiss more retaliation complaints than previously. and then, finally, you'll remember that the changes to that legislation supposed some mandatory training and publication obligations, so the ethics commission will work with our counterparts in the controller's office and in the department of human resources to produce those materials and ensure that supervisors understand new obligations imposed upon them, and that employees and city contractors understand new protections that they enjoy as a result of that. finally, before i take questions, if there are additional, i just want to note a couple of things on this month's report regarding the experts of the bureau of delinquent revenue to collect penalties owed to the commission. we have sometimes received questions from the commissioners in the part, and you'll recall that the deputy director of that department did

address you at one point some months ago. the -- the couple of cases first listed there, chris jackson, and then the committee to elect norman for supervisor, you'll see that b.d.r. has been working diligently to locate those individuals, and those individuals have very cleverly evaded b.d.r.s process servereservers to date. i can tell you anecdotal anecdotally b.d.r. sent a process server to jacqueline norman's home. they returned a week later, only to discover that they had vacated the premises entirely, and the same is true less so in the case of chris jackson. he has vacated apparently a

property that he still owns, and so b.d.r. has had trouble tracking these folks down, and so they are now employing what they call skip tracing, which is a fancy way of saying they continue to track the individual or the individual's assets. so i'm happy to answer questions about that or about any of the other matters reported on here. >> chair chiu: any questions? public comment on agenda item number seven? >> larry bush, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to comment. i'd like to recommend that the commission consider directing the policy that was adopted for the federal freedom of information act be adopted in the handling of complaints here, which is if an issue is decided that is not within the jurisdiction of a particular agency, that the person who

filed the complaint is informed what other agencies might be relevant where you could make a file. when i worked at the department of housing and urban development, there might be an issue that would come up that had to do with the police department, and so we would tell them that's not an issue that we have at h.u.d., but you might file the report at the police department. the same way you have a complaint maybe at ethics that don't fall within the jurisdiction of ethics but would call under the jurisdiction of other agencies. the point of all of this is to ensure that government operates properly. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. >> if i may respond to that, i appreciate the suggestion from mr. bush. as a matter of fact, staff do that when we receive phone

calls from prospective complainants, investigators or i will always discuss with them the nature of their allegations and develop an understanding of whether those allegations fall within our jurisdiction. if they do not, staff do diligently work with the caller to identify which agency might be the right place. in some instances, it's impossible for staff to know because we don't fully comprehend the jurisdiction of every agency in the city and county or beyond that, to the state or federal level. as to written complaints for which we conduct a formal preliminary review, if we can successfully identify the agency which we believe may have jurisdiction, tiply, as a matter of courtesy, we will not advise the complainant make a referral, we will make a referral to that agency, and we will, on behalf of the complainant, send that

complaint over to the agency that it belongs to. >> chair chiu: thank you. all right. mr. marstellar. >> yesterday. for the record, marstellar again. did have a question regarding miss wheat's case which looks hopeless when she filed for bankruptcy. but i'm one to learn from mistakes, and i'm wondering if given the fact that miss pelosi is the speaker of the house of representatives, if the commission were to send her a letter suggesting that in the bankruptcy court system, the -- it seems that public financing funds should be a protected class so that we would have a right in the final settlements of whatever bankruptcy prose she's in for a share of our funds.

it's possible that -- that we could, in fact, recover those public funds. that case was quite egregious, even though most of you missed it. but there were ten -- many cases where this person with a credit card -- i mean, an a.t.m. card -- i'm assuming it was miss sweet or her treasurer, would go to the a.t.m. and withdraw $40. and that was done 100 times. so it was clear they were using public funds as a cash cow. and now, it's essentially -- we have no rights in bankruptcy court. it seems like if we appropriately notified miss pelosi of that, she might sponsor a bankruptcy amendment, a bankruptcy code amendment that might be of use to us in

the future and certainly other advocates of public financing in the united states to protect the abuse of public funds. we have seen a number of examples where there's a shot -- lot of shenanigans when we have to do skip tracing or whatever. and i want to protect our public financing system to the fullest extent possible, and i'm sure with miss pelosi as our representative, that they would be willing to help. >> vice chair kopp: a question. >> chair chiu: commissioner kopp? >> vice chair kopp: do you know if there's lemgislation to amed

the bankruptcy code? >> no, i do not. >> vice chair kopp: so it would probably be new legislation. >> yeah, new legislation in this area, but it would have to be checked on. >> vice chair kopp: well, i think it should be investigated as a possibility. >> yeah, i think it's -- >> vice chair kopp: staff should promulgate a letter of analysis to the commission. >> we wouldn't have to necessarily detail what we know of miss sweet. >> vice chair kopp: well, it isn't the sweet case, it's the general policy. >> right. >> vice chair kopp: there ought to be a law to prevent that from being discharged in bankruptcy. >> the first bill, a.b. -- no, i'm sorry, h.r.-1 is in fact establishing a commission to the u.s. congress.

>> vice chair kopp: the bankruptcy act is in a different code, different part of the united states code, and it's my recollection taxes aren't exempt, can't be discharged. >> chair chiu: that's correct. >> that's right. certain classes can't be. >> vice chair kopp: madam chair, can we ask staff to do that and present it next month? >> so just to be clear, the request would be to have staff prepare a draft communication, draft letter to speaker pelosi, outlining the concerns that we have regarding the misuse of public funds and the risks that

the city -- that cities and other government entities face when their recipients of those public funds have misused them and they're in bankruptcy and there's no recourse for recovery of those funds. >> vice chair kopp: yeah, with a short analysis of our experience and at least one case, and maybe there are others in the past years. >> chair chiu: mr. pierce, did you have a comment? >> well, potentially not. i mean, the enforcement division is notcaust -- not accustomed to that. we could, in turn -- >> vice chair kopp: all right. here's what i'll do, madam chair, i'll draft the letter, and i'll give it to the

executive director, and she can then edit it as she sees fit and then transmit it to you. >> chair chiu: okay. that would be -- that would be a good solution. any other public comment? all right. moving onto agenda item number eight, discussion of executive director's report, an update of various program attatic of meetings, continued review. >> we have continued to make progress on our hiring. we've moved into the oral phase of our civil service examinations, and i'm hopeful that we'll have more specific news to report. not an update, but news to report avenue your next meeting. separately, as you can see, the budget, it's budget season and all departments will be submitting their budgets to the mayor's office on february 21. all departments received instructions from the mayor's office to provide as a part of

those packages a 2% cut in f.y.-20 and a 4% cut in f.y. 21. we did receive what those omts would be to our operations, roughly $84,000 in year one and $167,000 in year two. there was also a request to prepare a contingency plan of additional cuts of 2% and a 1% cut in f.y. 20 and a 2% cut. we recognize that departments are being asked to prepare those exercises for the mayor's office. we look forward to bringing more detailed information to you next month as we prepare our submission. obviously, cuts like this would translate to positions being lost, and that's also something we're hearing from the mayor's office that they're not interested in layoffs, so we're in the process in the next few

weeks are finalizing our budget request, and we'll bring that to you for your consideration at the february meeting. >> commissioner renne: miss pelham, as you'll recall, mayor lee gave those directions similar. and i think at that time, the commission instructed you to in effect not comply with them, and to point out the need to keep our funding at the level it's at. and so i think certainly, from my point of view, i would urge you to take a fairly hard line on it in pointing out the fact that the ethics commission only now is getting up to where it can operate as efficiently as it should. >> thank you. >> chair chiu: yes, i would echo what commissioner renne has said, that certainly, under the former mayor, he was very supportive of the work that the commission is doing, and i hope

that mayor breed will continue, not just in word, but in deed, in terms of not cutting the budget. and as you note, in order to meet these budget cuts, it would mean eliminating staff, and so essentially, we would not be able to hire the many positions that are currently open at this point, and i think that that would severely and materially impair our -- the commission's ability to be effective and to -- and to implement a host of regulations and laws that were just passed. so anything that i can do to help communicate that message, that budget cuts are -- i understand that there are challenges, you know, from a financial standpoint, that financial cuts in this information would not help the commission or the city achieve

its goals. so we look forward to hearing more, and i hope that the salary positions that we have open can help us in some way, and they don't come back for a full run rate problem in f.y. 20. public comment? >> i had a couple of technical questions, not too technical. when we lapse a position now with the staff relatively large enough, there may in fact be some margins that are significant enough under normal osmosis on salary saves or turnover in staff. we -- savings or turnover in staff. i'm wondering if that's a practical way to view this, that we might have some

latitude. that, you don't have to answer now. it's just a concept in my mind that we may have a significant size staff enough now where we could see those numbers accrue to our advantage. the other question i had is when does mr. -- the budget analyst for the board come into the process as opposed to your introduction to the mayor's budget analyst. do they work together in any way or are they completely compartmentalized? another question. i don't know how that really worked in reality -- >> vice chair kopp: they are separate. the mayor has a budget analyst, the board has a budget analyst. >> generally, when it's gotten to the board, we would lobby the budget analyst, or at least common cause would lobby the budget analyst. we have a number of contacts there, or at least i do as a result of that process. so if you need any help at the

board, i couldn't answer -- i don't think i know the mayor's budget analyst for this -- is that a new person? >> chair chiu: yeah, i believe it's a newly assigned. >> okay. newly assigned. okay. very good. that's all. >> chair chiu: any public comment? >> vice chair kopp: question of executive director. we have five vacancies now then. and all the investigator -- all four are working? >> no. >> vice chair kopp: thank you. >> to clarify, we have three investigators currently staffed -- excuse me, three? three, right? we are short one until we complete our hiring process. we have three investigator positions filled, in addition to the enforcement director.

we have one vacancy, which we are working to complete the hiring process. >> vice chair kopp: okay. so we do have one vacant? >> yes, we do. >> vice chair kopp: okay. great. >> chair chiu: agenda item number nine, introduction and possible action on complaints received by the ethics commission. is there a desire to go into closed session? >> vice chair kopp: in light of the hour, i won't request a closed session, but i have about 30 questions on the report, and i will rely on the executive director and other staff to provide information. >> chair chiu: okay. any public comment on this item? okay. number -- agenda item number ten, discussion and possible action for items on future

meetings. commission? public comment? no? additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission bylaws article seven, section two. no comment? okay. a motion to adjourn? >> vice chair kopp: so moved. >> second. >> chair chiu: all in favor? [voting] >> chair chiu: we're adjourned. >> vice chair kopp: thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you.

i'm nicole and lindsey, i like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do

this. it's important to understand and a concept of learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is

nice. no rain. beautiful san francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time, people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the

city to develop a legacy business registration. >> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves.

>> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that

my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be

very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪

>> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪

and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge

honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today.

>> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing. >> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪ - >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the

charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one

of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them.

>> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here. >> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that

that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san >> 2:02 p.m. the small business commission and sf gov tv for televising the program life streamed at sfgov.org. members of the public, take your opportunity to silence your phones and electronic devices and public comment is limited to three minutes. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. compo