and thank you for your leadership on the small business bill. i know simultaneously, ironically, you are trying to move through. i was very happy to hear you comment on the tech delivery side of things. i was going to back up the fellow commissioner who is had mentioned that and now i don't have to. and finally, i would just say on behalf of my colleagues, i think there's a lot of ptsd in the small business community over the past 10, 20 years. it's just been absolutely devastating. and incredibly difficult, and when thuf role, i think all of us take very seriously our charge, which is to protect small business, and do everything we can for it. and i support your legislation and i also support my colleagues

in trying to protect the small businesses that so it doesn't just become a city of two or three giant corporations and couple of people working for them on the side as independent contractors or what have you. so i do think that it's important to hear what that side of it. and i appreciate that the legislation addresses a lot of these issues. and if my colleagues have more ideas on ways to improve the legislation, i am happy to support it. >> thank you. commissioner dwight. >> i support any effort to reduce waste whether bit plastic bags or cardboard or styrofoam. i want to get back to the basic fundamental question, and that is, i want to know what the outcome is from this. we know that the 10% ---er to 10

cent fee has had a great effect. and we have some and there is loose data that we got to, quote, unquote, 60% at some period of time early on. where are we today to ascertain the outcome of the increase? and the answer was, we're not sure, but somewhere between 60-90%. the answer also included an observation that the best of class, ireland, let's give it to them right now s at 90%. so assuming that 100% is not accomplish-able really -- it's asifrpsyntotic to something. if ireland is there, maybe we're there. i don't know. but the answer between 60 to 90 percent is if we're at 60, i am all for it. make it 25 cents.

make ate dollar. don't make it a dollar. obviously there are other issues that, but make it 25 cents and let's measure the outcome. if we are at 90% already, we are focussing on the wrong issue. because we already got religion. 10 cents was all it took. and all it took for me. all it took for my colleagues here. 10 cents and like i can't afford 10 cents, but i'm not going to pay 10 cents for a bag and bring my own out of principle. what it did is raise awareness for the principle. if you really wanted that and that would be a deterrent for everyone. my question today is very fundamental and where are we today and will a 15 cent increase have a demonstratable effect? if san francisco is already best of class, then that part has been accomplished. let's focus on the other important issues of reducing waste where it exists. if we are already at 90%, it

doesn't exist at that point. it exists somewhere else. so i just don't like to see legislation that has good intentions but it doesn't actually address the problem. so if someone can tell me where we're at today and even if we're at 80%, i will say great, 10% bump is worth it to me to get to 90. let's agree where best of class is and where we are and let's monitor the progress. it is an it willing disheartening that we haven't done a study in 10 years because it sounds like the first was done at a three-year point to say we got to 60%. that is really a bummer if we are the leader in this in the world and we haven't done a follow-up study to determine where we're at if if we're already saints and angels, hall lay lou ja.

let's find -- hallelujah. let's find a different way to -- i don't object in absolute. i object on principle that we don't have the data to even figure out where we're going to go from here. that is really important because if we're already there, then there is no there there, so i want to look back at this piece of legislation and go, that was awesome. by changing it by 15 cents, we went from a to b. that is the lesson everyone will take and not that san francisco willy-nilly raises the fees without any knowledge of what the net effect is. we apparently have the ability to find out what that net effect is, so let's do it. >> commissioner dwight, i an i degree with you we should have data. better data. what we looked at is other cities charging 25 cents.

we didn't have that data that could say what will it do for us? >> we didn't go from 10 to 25. they started at 25. >> and from a dime to a carter in santa cruz. >> and then they saw the bump. they saw a huge bump. >> they had a quantity at a time v assessment. -- they had a quantitative assessment. we don't know what the baseline is. to say it is 60% is inaccurate because that is a very old number. i would like to know the baseline today to celebrate the same thing. we are not going to celebrate anything here if we raise the rate and don't know what it got us. i don't think. >> so you don't think that looking at santa cruz when they had at ate 10 cents. >> santa cruz is not san francisco. we don't have the data to know the cause and effect. we already have a success. we don't know what it is. so i won't be able to tell you

whether we had a demonstratable effect on this particular issue, and that is the refusal of bags at point of purchase. no one can tell me. if it's 75, 80, 90 percent, great, but we won't know what effect this has if we don't know that number today. >> what you are saying is you would like to have a study now, right? >> i would like to know -- even the informal study done before. figure out where we are today. that is the only way to support quantitatively a change in a fee that may have already had its desired effect. you haven't convinced me that we haven't had the desired effect with the 10 cents already. and i don't think that a bunch of millennials running around going i don't care about a dime, i am not using the bags. maybe they are, but let's find out. i would like to think they are more ecoconscious generation we have ever had.

>> and a detail, and the legislation as written does not go into effect until july 2020. and i hear the supervisor agreeing with you that it would be wonderful to have a study like the study that we did initially in order to have a baseline that is closer to sort of today. and i absolutely would be wonderful to celebrate this sort of material change, not just on the back they end our waste stream because we have data that we have seen plastic waste rising at ricology. >> but that could be an industrial effect. >> absolutely. >> the new food -- >> we all agree that gigacon, and the internet and the ability to purchase things over the web and not leave your home and get everything delivered to the house is driving that. again, this may not address that problem. we need to find other ways to address those problems. >> and find out what they are. >> and so what would be interesting to explore is we've got time between now and july 2020 and we're working closely

with the department. we're in budget season right now. we may be able to talk about whether there is action that we can take to support a study like that between now and july 2020. so that you do have some sense and we all have some sense of where we are now and celebrate the change that we're confident. if 99% or 90% of residents are already have shooed plastic bags together, no one is going to be upset about this fee, but it would be nice to know that we are seeing a change. >> precisely my point. >> u a commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you, supervisor, for being here. i just wanted to ask a question that i had asked previously. so for businesses like my family's business, for example, what do i tell my father who did phase out the plastic bags and spent three times more on getting handled strong paper bags, and now is having to raise

a fee on those? so is there room for exceptions in this legislation for retailers that are compliant in getting rid of plastic? and where they always made artificial costs increases for compostable silverware and that sort of thing, too? we're bearing the cost of this and the incentive where it's on the consumer is not on the retailer. so an intentative for a retailer would be an exception and if they are selling only using paper bags and because at this point i would definitely see retailers going back and making that switch back to plastic at this point because, well, i don't have to have these after all. >> no, and if we had the power here, the board of supervisors, we could do that, but we don't have the power to carve out because it is state legislation. and the thing with paper, we're

really trying to get rid of people bringing paper also. so it's not only plastic, but paper. and that's where cardboard comes in. and it's all of this looking at reusable bags and the last people or group that i want to punish on this is our small business. i mean, i am i am someone that feels we need to do everything we can to protect small business and make it easier in this city. and i see one thing after another hurting small business. and it drives me crazy. so i would never want to hurt small business and this type of legislation. but i can't do carveouts. because of the state regulations. but we, like i said with paper bags, we would really want to

try to get people to bring their own bags. because of the fact that, as i said, it is not great to have this recycling all this paper either. and i would definitely love to sit down with small businesses like family businesses that you have talked about, and small stores and figure out what we could do to help them. the regular customers if we can find bags and donated bags for them to give to the regular customers and say, here, here is a bag for you. and if you don't have one. to really try to help them move forward instead of giving a paper bag. and then charging their customer 10 cents. and because even when we charge 10 cents, the paper bag, that -- the businesses have to push that on to the consumer also. because those 10-cent bags add up to the small business. so we're really just trying to

eliminate anyone wanting a bag. so yeah. so thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you for your response. >> i really appreciate that. >> i'm sorry. i have to leave to the next thing. >> really quick before you lever, i want to say, first off, i really do appreciate what you have done for small business especially with your streamlining legislation. and you are one of the first supervisors that i know who says, i am going to do something a small business and really mean it. i really do appreciate that. >> thank you. and i really love the fact that on your all cash businesses. and i thought that was brilliant and really does help and a big, huge segment in this town who don't use credit cards. >> absolutely. >> that was an even field. i like half of this ordinance. i am one that if you get your fruit and vegetables and peanuts or whatever, i bring a little paper bag. or something else. to put the stuff in. and even our company i work for,

we do give out reusable bags at all the street fairs and up to over 100,000 of those distributed in san francisco. it's just 25 cent thing that if we can get studies to see where we're at now. i would feel more comfortable with that 25 cents. i just want to see a study because when i go to diamond heights safeway, there's not one person who is taking a paper bag in that store. i am amazed at everybody has their take away bags. so i almost feel like i would like to see a study on that. before i could buy into the 25 cents. the first half, though, i am all for that. we have all flown to hawaii and seen that what we think is an island between here and hawaii and it ain't an island. >> exactly. >> and that is concerning. so i appreciate the spirit of this and everything you have done for small business. >> thank you. thank you. >> commissioner riley.

>> well, thank you. and i just wanted to make a comment that i know a lot of people including myself and my fellow commissioners always bring our bags. >> there you go. she has one. and not because of the 10 cents, but because we all care about the environment. it is education and that we provided to the consumers. >> it is. and i absolutely agree with you. now days you don't have to have the big bags that you are hauling around, but just have a little scrunchie in your bag or purse or pocket. and this is the thing that -- trying to bring what you do and what we want most people to do is bring their own thing. in the end, bringing their own bag. i think small businesses especially can be so powerful because the small businesses, they know their customers much

better than the larger businesses that are just like a whole foods that is giving bags and charges you. those small businesses, they know the corner stores and they know your name when you come in. they know, hey, i've got that drink that you like in the bag that i ran out of. they know that. for them to be able to, you know, even have free bags or whatever to be able to give people and say, hey, you should bring this bag because we don't want to charge you for bags because we have to charge you. so to have a roundtable with small businesses to say how do we support you to cut the costs from the customers and the environment. and thank you very much.

>> if we have no more questions, i would like to open it up for public comment. any members of the public who would like to make comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner, do we want to take any action on this? >> well, i mean, i can -- i support the legislation provided that the increase from 15 cents has a demonstratable effect on the -- that is the only provision. i support the legislation and the increase to 25 cents if it has the effect that is promised. i just don't have the data to know what the baseline is to know if it's going to have that effect. if there is a promise to do a study. i am not going to hold it up, but i think it's incumbent on the supervisor and the team here

to give us the baseline to so that the public knows what the effect is. because they are paying for it. and as a small business, we should know what the ultimate effect is. it's only fair. i move we support the legislation with the provision that a study is done between now and the time that it is implemented to get the baseline behavior today so that we can know what the effect is on the behavior of people using bags. >> do you think we can get a study done? >> thanks, commissioners. yes, i think that is something that we can definitely do. and we will commit to between now and july. >> if you don't have the budget, i will help you raise the money. there are plenty of companies that would be happy to -- look, sf city is all about representing technology companies and putting data

behind solutions. so if we can't find a couple of companies at sf city that will help us get a quantitative analysis of this -- >> i'll fund it myself. >> we would welcome that and at minimum commit to the informal study and if there are resources to support an additional survey, we would support it. >> an informal to start. >> director? >> so -- excuse me. for the motion, since i am hearing from the commissioners the second -- the precheckout bag seems to be -- the commission is comfortable. so if we could maybe first take a motion on -- >> an i made a motion to support the legislation as presented provided a study is done to baseline the behavior today so we can know what the effect of the 15 cent increase is. period. >> commissioner laguana. >> just to clarify t survey you would like to see is just

measuring adoption rate of nonplastic bags, nonplastic paper, bring your own? >> baseline, baseline whether we're at 60% or 9 # o% or somewhere in between in the use of reusable bags versus disposable bags. the measurement that was already -- >> the one already determined in santa cruz and ireland. okay? get the same information that they have. between now and the time that this legislation goes into effect. that is my motion. >> commissioner ortiz. >> can i ask also, if possible, a break in demographics. especially latino and african-american. and how does that impact and the usage rates and stuff of that nature? >> and asian. >> and asian. >> so i will amend my motion with the desire to have that data also broken out on

demographic basis. if possible. >> i would second that. >> but i accept the fact that -- look, i want the first before the second. i want the baseline data. and if the answer is, well, we would get you the baseline data but can't get the demographic data, so we're not doing either. get one or both, preferably both. i will accept that amendment to the motion. >> may i just respond? i think there is great value in certainly understanding the demographics. i would say in terms of the informal study we did previously was really just eyeballing and eye checking and a customers leaving and a points of business. and not necessarily collecting any additional data. it is worthwhile to pursue that data and may change the scope of the survey.

and in terms of requiring additional resources. i just wanted to explain that may impact our ability or timeline to deliver on that, but it is something i will discuss internally with my colleagues in terms of how we can accommodate that if we can and even if we can do an informal assessment of demographic or engage with a customer to confirm their identity as opposed to making an assumption on someone's identity. i think that is a challenge with that kind of survey. >> just from the eyeball on the streets and go to a travellers market and a whole food. you will see the difference on who is carrying bags and who is bringing it. >> commissioner laguana. >> it is fine. >> so we have a motion by commissioner dwight and seconded by zouzounis. do you want to read it back? >> motion by commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner zouzounis, to support the legislation provided that a

study will be completed to determine how many consumers currently bring their own bags and to include, if possible, a breakdown of the demographics of those consumers. >> perfect. >> roll call vote. commissioner adams? >> yes. >> a commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> a commissioner ortiz? >> yes. >> a commissioner yee-riley? >> yes. >> a commissioner zouzounis? >> yes. motion passes 6-0 with one absent. >> thank you very much. >> next item please. >> thank you. item 5, continued from may 29, modified resolution urging the mayor and san francisco board of supervisors to adopt the small business commission's recommendation for economic transition assistance for small business impacted by city bans on the sales of certain tobacco products. discussion and action item. >> commissioners, we've revised

the motion, simplified it, so just to backtrack a little bit, so the e-cigarette ban file number 19-312 passed at the board of supervisors last week on the first reading both in committee and last week at the board of supervisors there was discussion about creating a working group to deal with making recommendations and suggestions for mitigation measures. so i think what's before you is the simplified version with the urging for the mayor and the board of supervisors to follow up on that working group instead of articulating specifics in the mitigation measures, we can follow up with that. we know what the commission has, but i think we want to assure that the working group gets

forms. and that they follow through with that commitment. and what we have included is a list of recommendations as to who would make up that working group, which would be the office of economic and workforce development, our office, and the small business development center, the city attorney's office, and then representation from the board of supervisors. >> i would like to recommend one one-word addition to this. it's in the fourth to last. it specifies the $70 million loss. i believe you mean an annual loss of $70 million. $70 million per year. right? >> a commissioners zouzounis?

>> if we're going to skip to the data points, i do think we need to clarify the $50 million that the controllers report from the economic analysis of the ban on flavored tobacco, that was city losses, not industry. >> so $50 million in taxes and fees? >> i believe so. so this has been kind of an ongoing issue for us because we need to identify mechanisms for industry loss which the controller's office hasn't been able to provide. and part of why we're grapling with the monetary loss for the e-cigarette ban is there's not been a formal study conducted on industry loss even from the ban on flafred tobacco. from what i understand, $50

million was a loss to the city and i would assume based on our numbers of some retailers telling me they would lose 45,000 a year that that number in industry losses would be much higher. >> again, it should say annual. we have to qualify the time period over which losses are incurred. >> an i think part of our challenge with being able to fully articulate this was that in the -- is in the controller's report, they did not get to that level of specificity. and so if we're using their data to do some equating for the e-cigarettes, whichevers a disappointment that the office of economic analysis chose not to do an economic analysis for this piece of legislation --

we're sort of -- we want to make sure that we're not mistaking what the controller's data is by saying annually or sales tax revenue. so we haven't gotten specificity from the control ears office to what their economic impact report was. >> and my point is just throwing a number out, $70 million, we need to either throw it out -- get rid of it because it has no meaning or giver it meaning and that is it has to be characterized as to whether it's an annual loss and absolute loss over the next 10 years or what. it's just a number. it has -- >> can i interrupt please? >> clarify. >> clarify that what is stated in the economic impact report is that based on the data that they have, they estimate the value of

flavored tobacco cigarettes that would be effected by the legislation at approximately $15 a year. that is the value of the product no, tt value that the city collects. >> good, value of the product. >> thank you for that clarification. >> annual sales or flavored, retail sales of -- i guess. >> it didn't specify annual or overall. i would not feel comfortable. >> you said per year. >> per year. sorry. so it's annual. >> so we will write in the annual. >> any other commissioner comments before we go to public comment? and we are comfortable levering

in the $70 million loss in sales per year as a pro forma number? and also the $50 million response in loss of sales per year up above as referenced? >> in the chart, too. just put that. >> in the chart as well. >> if you -- dominica, obviously we're not economic experts, and dominica did use a calculation based on the cost of each e-cigarette and some evaluation. can we say it is an absolute number? without the office of economic analysis, we're doing our best judgment to provide an evaluation where the office of economic analysis lacked to do so. >> i don't have any objection. >> estimate. >> an it says on here estimate. >> looking at it, it does make

sense because per product electric cigarettes are more expensive. is that how you ka imto that conclusion? >> -- came to that conclusion? >> the prort provided the estimated number of electronic users in the city and looking at the packet -- >> this is great. i was no way questioning the data. i was saying clarify as an annual number. that is all. >> i'm okay with that. >> do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on item five? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? economying commissioner laguana. >> quick question. the attorney in me in here is wondering, should is an optional

request. it is like -- so i am getting down to the part further resolved, economic mitigation measures should be developed in partnership with merchants, osb, oewd, and sbfc, controller's office, city attorney's office, board of supervisors. are we -- >> i would say, commissioner, good catch because generally "shall" means it's mandated. so should and shall. >> so is that your recommendation is that it -- >> maybe turn it down a notch. and not instruct all of those agencies that they have to all work together. maybe some of them want to participate and some do not. maybe it's appropriate for some of them. >> our reasoning for recommendation is because each

provides some level of information and knowledge and expertise that i think it was out that entire package working together of departments that i think will get the best results with that entire package of departments working together. >> i don't disagree. is should the right word? >> do you want it to be stronger or weaker? >> i think a little more encouraging, less mandating, directing. does that make sense? weaker, i guess, would be the vote. >> are you thinking it should be stronger? >> shall would say these are the departments that need to be at the table. should is -- should is the weaker version.

i was thinking you were going in the weaker direction -- >> shall means mandating. should is recommending. >> right. >> okay. >> that was the attorney in me and which i am not an attorney, and revealed. >> we'll keep it as should then. are we? >> i am good with should. i thought should and shall were synonymous. >> thank you for your work on this, dominica. and updating it to include our recommendations from last time. >> did we -- i'm sorry, did we call for public comment? >> we did call for public comment. do we have a motion? do we have the motion out there? >> i move to adopt this

resolution. >> with the changes. >> with the amendment of putting per year. >> i second. >> roll call vote please. >> yes. motion by commissioner zouzounis to adopt the resolution as written with changes as direct bid commissioner dwight, seconded by commissioner yee-riley. roll call vote. commissioner adams. >> yes. >> commissioner -- >> is it too late to interject? >> while we are doing -- we are already doing the vote. >> fine. >> a commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> a commissioner laguaan a? >> yes. >> a commissioner ortiz? >> commissioner riley. >> commissioner zouzounis? >> motion passes 6-0 with one absent. item six, approval of draft meeting minutes, action item.

>> has everybody read over the minutes from june 10 meeting? do we have any comments? if not, does any member of the public like to make a comment on the june 10 meeting? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we want to have a voice vote. everybody approve of the commission minutes? say aye. >> we need a motion. >> i move to approve the minutes from june 10. >> i have to abstain. i wasn't there. >> we have a second? >> so before we take the motion, then, if commissioner laguana is needing to -- is not abstained, but recused. you need to ask for recusal from the vote. first. >> who do i ask? >> do you want to recuse -- you don't need to.

if you don't miss -- >> if i don't need to recuse, we won't bother. >> okay. i made my motion. >> do we have a second? >> an i'll second. >> all in favor? aye. any no's? motion passes. >> item 7, director's report. update and report on office of small business and small business assistance center, department programs, policy and legislative matters, announcements from the mayor, and announcements regarding small business activities. discussion item. >> so commissioners, i just want to bring to your attention for the accessible entrance program, we are now in the category three deadline so these are entryways with one step. submission for the checklist was due on june 1, 2019. and any building permits that are going to be filed need to be done by september 1, 2019.

as always, this is regulatory item that we are encouraging clines, so even if property owners are missing the deadline, we're encouraging them still to submit their checklist and start their remediations. so d.b.i. just did send a letter to property owners that combined both the vacancy and update on that vacancy ordinance and a reminder of the category three deadline that was sent out in may. the california redemption value, the c.r.v., we were very close in getting $3 million in funding at the state level to start the mobile recycling. unfortunately, during the budget process, though our local elected officials advocated for this, we as a city, the mayor, advocated for this, and it did

not get through committee. other members thought it was too much money going specific to san francisco, so we -- the department of environment, we will be convening in july and trying to figure out what to do with the next step. and there may be -- might revisit again or take a different look to get different funding at the local level and work through that through the next budget cycle. >> this would have been funding from the state? >> right. >> to do and if you recall, senator passed legislation or a bill that was supported at the state that allows five mus any mallties to start -- to allow five municipalities to start a

pilot program. so we're hoping that we could get that additional funding from the state to be able to initiate the pilot program. so we are getting nothing -- >> a we are not getting the additional $3 million that our local area was asking for from the state budget to be able to initiate this program. so and if we had the $3 million, it would have been easy for the department of environment to purchase the vehicles and really start to have a program rolled out by the end of the year. so this --. >> are you saying that they think $3 million is too much. so is that and we're not getting any from the state this coming budget cycle. >> oh, that is too bad.

>> yes. so i just want to provide you with that update because we worked -- our office and department of environment had with the mayor's a u.s. had close conversations and worked hard on trying to get the funding. the active space legislation which you heard on june 10, that will be heard in committee in july after the city's budget cycle supervisor brown and mayor breed on legislation on the business streamlining. it was introduced in december of 2018, heard for the third time in committee today and we'll all know the result to pass on to you whether it moved out. there was definite pressure to really make some significant amendments, and i do know some

amendments were being and probably postponing some amendments but not wanting to water it down too much. be able to pass that on after today. provide you wan update. the cash acceptance, the mandated acceptance of ka, for brick and mortar, the implementation date is around august 23. we ole get the specifics on that, but and which the mayor signed it. >> the amazons downtown all take cash now. >> a great. >> and then restricting the commercial tobacco activity activities for both on the port and and restricting the sales of e-and brick and mortar and

online. both passed on the first reading last tuesday. again, as stated earlier with the resolution, there is effort -- there was discussion around creating the and supervisor walton's office did reach out to set up a meeting on mitigation strategist. not clear if it is the same thing as the working group, but we'll probably have a meeting in july once the budget cycle is done with. and i do think that we will fro federal lowed based upon the economic analysis that they have done. and with the flavored tobacco cigarettes, why they chose not to do an economic analysis with the and dominica's ability to do the basic analysis and that it's

a larger economic hit and the criteria of which that is used when economic analysis should be done, that legislation met the threshold from our understanding. and so we would like to know why the choice was not to do why the and teddy is on vacation and he is the one to respond to that. we should soon, but not in time for today's meeting. and then i am very happy to report that supervisor peskin has introduced legislation that and the department of public health has been wanting to change the health scores from a

numerical health score to the green, yellow, and red scoring, which most counties use and then this will also etlim and that many businesses have had about yelp posting the health scores and that's economically and the department of health has been wanting to do this for a little while, but they needed confirmation with a new director coming in and has given them -- has said, yes, let's move forward with it. so i know that this is something that the and i know this is something that the restaurant and food communities have wanted. it won't change the metrics of which businesses are evaluated, but it will -- it will no longer be something that yelp can use

and -- which is important for our businesses. and request for two hearings that i thought would be important notes for you to know about that were asked for last week at the board of supervisors was a hearing on the niche tifr ordinance for the business and tax regulations rative which is proportionate with the pay. and also a hearing on the status of worker rights in the california gig economy. and so i know that and i know there is discussion about the other impacts of the businesses who operate the gig economy and its impact on small businesses. and so there may be an opportunity to expand on to

expand on that, but just wanted to let you know that is there. and don't know when that is going to be scheduled yet. and then in regards to state legislation ab161, the solid waste and when the commission heard it on may 29, there hasn't been any updates. it's sitting in the state senate and it has yet to be scheduled for any hearing yet. >> that's a good thing. >> yes. and then one last thing that the office is going to be moving this thursday, friday, over to the other side of the tax and treasurer's office. still be in the tax and treasurer's office. >> you are not available? >> going to ask for your help. but just to note to we and we will be moving to get relocated. and rick is very happy because now he'll be able to be sitting

with us and we'll be sitting together and all together. the last thing that i would thought -- we don't need to have a conversation, but something to think about in relationship to the discussion with the bags is that -- this was a concern of mine with the requirement for and requiring businesses and buildings. and with sort of the environmental impacts of our sort of gig economy and the delivery economy and whether should the business pay for it all? or should -- where are we -- where is a friend who managed an

apartment building and she took me down to the garbage area and there was absolutely no care or effort to breaking down boxes and caring about how the individual, most of the individuals in that apartment worked in the tech environment, just care about their disposables and how they are handling their dispoisable and garbage and -- their disposable and garbage and waste. and the's of that, well, the ease of it, where is the consumers' responsibility and always paying for their ease of creating more garbage as opposed to putting it on the business. and so whether it is, you know,

our restaurants who are being charged a great deal by these delivery services and is it -- are businesses that have to deal with that facilitating that, is it the consumer or is it the larger entity? and it's just something to sort of think about and good to maybe get some direction because as our office meeting with the department of environment to get sort of a first hit or with supervisors kind of what is and so we can have dominica put this down under new business. we can have a discussion about it going forward when we have our weekly meetings. we can schedule it in. >> and maybe invite the department of environment to this discussion. >> so that's it. that concludes my report unless you have any questions for me. >> a commissioner zouzounis.

>> i was told by the sponsor of the additional tax on businesses with disproportionate executive pay that part of the and is this a final allocation to mental health assess? is that what this -- >> i think that there are a couple ordinances that are similar to dealing with salary compensation. so this particular initiative -- >> this is the one she is talking about. >> no. >> an it goes to mental health services. >> were you having a conversation with supervisor haney on this? >> are you saying there are multiple? >> i think there is one other one that's similar.

>> no, this is the one. >> this is the one. >> u a this is definitely the one. this is the one here, the one that you are talking about and he had this -- >> an i talked to supervisor mar and he came and presented this so the council of district merchants legislative committee and and part of it goes to small yet -- >> this is the one it is supposed to go into the small business stabilization. >> an it says here only mental health services. i am wondering if he said that because he was in front -- i have also heard him say the same thing. >> or it could be that it's -- well, we will take a look at it and get back to you. i have not had a chance to read the ordinance. >> that is the one -- and what you are talking about is that

legislation and matt haney said that in or the neighborhood meeting that part of the funds is supposed to be small business stabilization grants. >> okay. so i will circle back around with you and yes. >> this one we have to be really choes on that before it get -- really close on that before it gets to the ballot that it is put on that. >> another thing we brought up as merchants is and big tech companies that contract with small businesses go under, and the small businesses usually eat the default, so part of an ask and how to we collecting and thousand her partnering small with big and how will the ordinances effect the big ones. >> a do you want to bring that

up under new business? >> a bring that up under new business. any other questions for the director before we go on to the open public comment? >> okay. public comment. would anybody like to -- any public comment on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> there was a motion made by the board of supervisors for business and backs legislations and that's separate from this. and the motion included that the additional tax would be some portion of it would be allocated towards small business stabilization. >> okay. so there is a separate. >> thank you.

>> next item. >> item 8, commissioners' reports. allows president, vice president, commissioners to report on recent small business activities and make announcements that are of interest to the small business community. discussion item. >> okay. commissioner dwight. >> i attended the monthly cdma meeting and council district merchants last tuesday the 18th. as did our director and i just rebehinded everyone of the $15.09 an hour. >> thank you. commissioner riley. >> yes. ai tended the war -- i attended the war journal 2019 small business and startup seminar in chinatown on saturday. mayor breed was there, and she shared $9 million budget investment for small business. >> thank you. commissioner laguana. >> wanted to give my fellow commissioners a heads up that i have been chatting with some

folks at oewb about a possibility of a concert for jobs, which would benefit -- and i think that would be a cool project for us to get involved with if it comes to pass. >> great. that would be the mayor's summertime work program. >> that is a good idea. >> the only thing that has to do with small business are my -- i am on the board of what is called the lazy beer fund. and we wound up delivering a check to for $33,000 to the guernville chamber of commerce through the -- and affected by the flood up in that area back in march. so with that said, it is pride

week. happy pride, everybody. >> shop, eat, and drink in the castro. we need the business. >> any other commissioner reports? >> do we have public comment on item 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item please. >> item 9, new business. allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for future consideration by the commission. discussion item. >> a commissioner ortiz. >> i wanted to follow up on an email i sent to the president and director regarding the lack of regulation regarding car share and the amazons of the world. the purview obviously is to take care of small business, and we do a great job preventing legislation from the supervisors that are sometimes bell attended. think about the traffic. the biggest issue is the quality of life, but it is also

affecting the small businesses because you don't go to certain neighborhoods and can't take public transit or uber or your vehicle to get across town during certain hours. that is having a large impact on small businesses like restaurant and the delivery services charge up to 30%. i grew up in the mission and street tax wasn't 30%. so this is getting crazy. and it's getting out of hand. and we don't regulate this. amazon wants to apply for a liquor license. >> their formula retail via app is crazy. crazy that us as small businesses are not forcing the legislators to do something to regulate. key example today and they are the ones generating the most waste now in our city, but yet we have to pay? the consumers of small business. that's crazy. that is just crazy. nobody is regulating. all we look at is the

legislation passing through. and we're not -- the big corporate culprit is the formula retailers with the gypsy apps. we got to do something. i propose we have an economic impact report and we got to make it happen fast. our small business -- i bet you they are declining. i bet you there was more small businesses 10 years ago. with all the crazy legislation we nasz and amazon hugs, is that what we're doing? >> we're going to put this down. i want to make this a priority. thank you. >> and one last thing. what do i have to do seriously, and i am getting really upset about the paper thing. >> speaking of environmental waste. do i have to get a supervisor to legislate us to do it? or can't we do it ourselfs? >> there is some -- i will get back to you because there is some sort of criteria that it's

not just as easy for us just to buy tablets. let me just put it that way. so we may have to legislate it. but we'll get back to you on that because and i have had some discussion with the finance section of the office. >> i think we should be the first commission in san francisco to ban paper from our meetings. >> an i love it. >> a commissioner zouzounis. >> self-imposed. >> i want to echo what the fell hoe commissioner here said and also what -- fellow commissioner has said and commissioner dwight said we can't just fight the technology innovation that is happening, but we need to hold them accountable to better work with small businesses and with that said, i am curious if there is some types of legislative precedents that we can advocate for as a commission far lot of these cloud kitchen is ane