third-platforms do not have a good understanding of where their food is coming from or whether it's been reheated. additionally, when a product is collected by a delivery courier, there's no requirements that the food be maintained in a safe and healthy manner before it reaches the customer? any questions on this topic? great. in terms of land use policy, we drove to two conclusions, one being we thought that formula retail controls and how they interact with catering uses should be explored by the city, particularly where virtual kitchens appear to be able to open under being principally

permitted where restaurants are allowed to be opened. for background, as s.f. planning presented, they consider virtual and gross kitchens to be catering uses. however, we know that those -- that some virtual and gross kitchens have previously sought permitted under mobile restaurants and food facilities, and the department is currently reviewing those definitions. caterers are usually permitted in industrial areas of the restaurant. limited restaurants are usually permitted in neighborhood commercial corridors. virtual and gross kitchens are

considered to not exchange money for services on the property. if a fast-food change wanted to open up their own kitchen, they would be principally permit today do so as a catering use. >> dominica -- >> go ahead. >> for this particular section, i feel like there was -- there was some stronger feelings and less stronger feelings about whether or not formula retail should be allowed in catering uses. i think i was in the strong feeling that it shouldn't be. >> okay. >> i guess my question is on process of this. are we going to go through each

section and agree this is what was said, and if we go through as a body, then we question? >> yes. >> okay. then i'll hold my questions. >> okay. as more businesses open, congestion may thusly increase due to an increase in use of those delivery apps.

>> effectively, you're determining what. [inaudible] >> -- who's a virtual kitchen versus who's a brick and mortar, and effectively, they recommended the city come up with a way to make a better determination of who's who and study it for the impacts.

so effectively, your conclusion was that the city should formally support the food fair delivery act, which is at the state level, but also should explore local regulations that could ensure brick and mortar businesses have adequate protections in the third-party delivery space. what was not fully discussed at the meeting on february 25 was legislation that's been proposed in various states and localities, including the fair

food delivery act, which to be perfectly honest, i've not done a thorough analysis of. i'm hoping my counterpart can speak somewhat to it, but it was introduced recently, so give us a little space to better understand it. the state of rhode island has proposed legislation regarding disclosures and regulation. the state of new york has proposed legislation regarding health inspection grades. the city of new york has proposed the most robust package of legislative proposals relative to this space, six pieces of legislation in particular, which are outlined on this slide. again, i haven't had the time or band width to fully understand each piece of

legislation, but we have an idea of what they are generally proposing? you have that, i believe, in your binders, and if not, i will e-mail this out to you. and with that, i am happy to take questions at this time. >> commissioners, do we have any questions? okay. well, it was a super interesting hearing. ben, did you want to speak at all to -- has there been any development since the hearing in terms of how the planning department is looking at this? >> sure.

good morning, commissioners. ben van houten from the office of economic and workforce development. i agree this created a lot of interdepartmental dialogue. i won't speak for the folks at planning or d.p.h. other than to say we've had good follow up conversations with them, and i think we all have a more keen eye on this emerging set of models. based on that hearing and the discussion tonight and the memo and the recommendations you provide, i think that'll be really helpful in terms of approaching thursday's hearing, which, again -- this is all the beginning of this conversation if it ultimately all goes up into legislation, i'm sure this'll all be back before you in this conversation, and it'll continue on. >> sure. appreciate the presentation and appreciate you being here tonight. i think -- oh, what?

oh, there is? oh, sorry. do we have any public comment? yeah, i got it. seeing none, public comment closed. so my observation was, at the hearing, there didn't seem to be any dispute between the restaurants or us when we -- us, when we debated it, that there should be opt in or opt out. i think there was broad consensus, i think we all agreed on that one. that does not need further discussion. i think we all need on the health score, and i didn't hear any objections from the restaurant industry, either, and it doesn't seem like it's a big ask of the delivery services. but that seems fairly nonconfrontational -- what's

the -- >> controversial? >> yeah, that's what i meant to say. so the live issues, from my perspective -- commissioner yakutiel, you mentioned formula retail and how that plugs into it. and then, you know, i don't get the sense that the -- you know, there was a ton of debate about catering and limited restaurants other than there was a sense that the planning department should be aware of this and, you know, obviously, we don't want to have a lot of ghost kitchens suddenly clogging up commercial corridors and competing with brick and mortars on some sort of an unfair playing field. it sounds like they are going to take a look at it, but if anybody feels like we should

not take a look at it. >> yeah. i think there was a difference between limited kitchen, ghost kitche kitchen, and pop up kitchen. it does seem like the planning department was noting it was happening in certain cases and trying to clamp down on it. and i think if we're giving a recommendation to planning, it is thank you for doing that. please continue to do that because i don't think anyone had major issues with it happening, it was where it happening. >> right, and where it could potentially lead. >> right. >> as commissioner ortiz said, you know, sometimes our job is to make sure that a potential bad thing doesn't happen in the future because we didn't keep our eye on it. >> yeah. >> so on that point, i think -- dominica, thank you for writing

that there. i think my point would be to specifically say that ghost and cloud and virtual kitchens should not be allowed to be zoned as limited restaurants. they should be zoned as catering, and they should not be allowed in our major corridors. >> i agree with that. >> it doesn't say that with as much teeth, but that's how i think it should be said about it. >> you know, the only thing i have is laurie from g.g.a. said these can sometimes fill spots that can be vacant, and she sort of outlined that that was a good -- or she recognized that that was potentially a good thing. i don't know if she was speaking against her interests. >> i think that maybe speaks to

a larger issue that we can delve into during our retreat. you know, there are a lot of businesses that are, you know, maybe not anybody's third choice, but, you know, maybe third, fourth, fifth choice in their neighborhood, and they're, you know, filling a vacant spot. and i'd like to get a sense of the commission's point of view in terms of how much weight does that hold, you know, the fact that they're filling a vacant spot? is that enough weight to say yes to maybe another non -- nonretail use, non -- you know, depending on each neighborhood, everybody has a different kind of feel. all of our corridors feel very different to one another, and

noncomplementary business. is that, like, okay because we're just, like, trying to fill spots right now. >> right. and to that spot, aunjon spoke quite eloquently to that spot referring to that model. we drove him to that model and aligned forces with businesses that practice that model, and now we're going to recommend pulling the rug out under that model. >> i think it's where the business is. i think in this specific instance i'm talking, like, more about the neighborhood commercial street, right? like -- >> yeah, but i think the businesses that he has, i think they're, like -- >> two block away. >> yeah, it's off of 24. >> i think that if the spirit

of some of these regulations could work. the problem, the way they stand, a small business could take two or three years going through conditional use. that's the real problem, because if conditional use would actually work, then poof, a couple months, the community has input, you can stay here, whatever the community wants. that's the spirit of conditional use. the problem is it's not working the way it should be working, and that's the problem, like you said. the problem is storefronts, neighborhood districts, they want them all filled. if that's what they want, that's what they want, but unfortunately, that's not going to happen in san francisco. >> yeah. >> i think this is a tough one in san francisco because i do think we have an issue of vacancies in our commercial corridors, but the way i think

about it is i do think that these businesses could, in the immediate or long-term, pose a threat to restaurant. i think in the short-term, we're squeezing restaurants, and this is an opportunity to generate more revenue. but this is a -- [inaudible] >> oh, my goodness. >> if these spaces are able to, in the medium and long-term, lower their prices and have their own kind of brands in there that are reducing time and costs for restaurants that are now in direct competition for businesses on the corridors, it could have a

direct impact on an industry that is already under threat. so when you and i think about this journey together that's happening on commercial co corridors, i think about the businesses that are already there that have helped the community. i don't think -- i think we can have an open mind. the issue is i actually see that this particular kind of business could hurt if it is -- hurt, if it is located on a commercial corridor, the brick and mortar locations on that corridor. we have concentrated neighborhood commercial corridors for a reason. >> i think, you know, we all want to be very careful with the commercial corridors, and i

think it's well said. i think it's a real concern. i -- i guess part of me is wondering whether this particular component is quite ripe for us putting our stamp on, you know, recommending a specific course of action. and by that i mean, so far, we have a sample size of one. we're seeing a possibility of a trend, a possibility of harm, but we don't have actual harm yet. and i'm a little concerned just lightly -- and i think reasonable minds can look at this two different ways. i'm just wondering if maybe the right time to sort of advocate sort of forcefully for an issue is when people are complaining about it? or is it premature for us to

get involved when g.g.a. says there isn't a problem right now? >> i think, with respect, that's why we're here, and we're trying to be proactive and not reactive. and i don't see a reason why we would not, having taken all this information and provide some clear prescriptions of what we think should and shouldn't happen. >> wouldn't it be easier to do it proactively, if there isn't anybody right now trying to get in the neighborhood corridors, to just say we don't want it there before we have a bunch of permits that go out, and then, we have to get them stuck in the c.u. process or whatever it is? >> right. now we have to -- remember, with the businesses that are there, they're giving them, like, a one-or-two-year extension, and it's a lot harder to undo something in the community. >> oh, yeah. i think it's a very fair point.

steph steven, i think you have a viewpoint on this. >> oh, yeah, i like what she's saying. i agree with that. >> okay. >> i think the catering, that's where we can be the most proactive. they're doing exactly what uber did, and after, it's too hard. >> yes, dominica. >> just one point of clarity, the one virtual and ghost kitchen that has been allowed in a neighborhood commercial corridor was allowed on permit because it was miscategorized, and i think that had been maybe lost in the conversation on the 26? and so corey, the planning

administrator, explained it, that the concept would be catering uses, which are generally permitted in the industrial areas of the city and not on the commercial corridors save for -- i think it's the mission and c.t. >> so the instance that we're thinking of may in fact not actually be -- may not have passed muster to begin with, and so we're -- would ordinarily not be allowed to proceed under the status quo? >> correct. >> okay. that's helpful. >> but that's when they -- right now, their current model is they get a facility, and they cluster group, correct? right? individuals, some proviivate, that's their model now.

but if i wanted to bypass this, i didn't want to cluster this and have a single caterer use, that's how i would bypass them if i wanted to do that. >> i see ben walking up. >> this is one of the most complex pieces of it. my understanding it four facilities, if you don't allow a member of the public to walk up, and you're only doing delivering out of a kitchen, that is a catering use, and catering uses are not generally permitted in the neighborhood commercial corridor, so anybody that is doing that business should be under active neighborhood enforcement. so the point was to treat businesses the same way in the neighborhood commercial corridors. i think it was the discussion that you had about directing planning to keep up the good

work to make sure that folks aren't doing that. where the catering retail and formula uses intersect is in the more industrial areas where catering is permitted, formula retail are already permitted. to the extent that there are questions around this feels different than other catering -- other types of catering -- you know, when we think of catering, we often think of somebody catering an event or a wedding or that sort of thing. i think that moving forward, when we talk about where catering uses are permitted, these things -- these types of new types of models are permitted and thinking on an individual district-by-district level, that seems certainly an

area ripe for consideration moving forward. but i think in the future, making sure that businesses are consistently treated in the neighborhood commercial corridors to prevent any sort of unfair advantage. that seems like the most immediately attack there. >> so how hard would it be to say catering resources can't have formula retail in them. i'm sorry. i'm confused. those two things are both permitted in the same area, but this is one business that is a catering use but also has formula retail in it, so it's like a business within a business. isn't that different? >> well, i don't know that the planning department would take that same assessment that it's a formula retail. it has formula retail in it. if the facility is not operating for public walk up, it's not public retail at all,

so the argument around formula retail is different. it's the look and feel -- it doesn't really lend itself to a nonretail use. that being said, i think, certainly, when we talk about catering, different types of catering, in the neighborhood commercial corridors right now, a neighborhood restaurant can do some accessory catering as long as it doesn't do catering directly to consumers, so there's different ways to think about catering. so i'm just not sure -- again, i would defer to the planning department on this, but that's the argument on trying to use a formula retail sort of approach. >> we're talking about being equitable and protecting small businesses from competition. what i think we're trying to get at is a mcdonalds shouldn't

be able to open up in noe valley versus direct delivery. i don't know how we think you guys get there, but if that's what the commission believes, it should be clearly stated, that we don't believe that formula retail should be able to operated in catering areas where they're allowed. is that what's written here? >> effectively. >> i just want to make sure this has teeth. that's all. >> yeah. >> i know it's not making sure it's full molar, claw, but i think it's important. >> i think the purpose of thursday's meeting is to layout what the issues are? i don't think that this

document is intended to be in its final version? i think that that should be reserved for the march 23 meeting, where something more formal can perhaps be put into place after the discussion on -- on thursday? >> so -- yeah, i agree. let me just say -- and this, i think, encapsulates it. we know what catering is. you deliver to the bar mitzvah, you deliver to the wedding. retail is you walk up to the place. this is a gray zone between catering and retail. this is a customer where they're ordering from mcdonalds, and it's coming from mcdonalds, but it's coming out of this third area. it's catering retail or retail

catering. it's this third category, and i think that's where we are all sort of struggling is it does seem like a place that's ripe for inequitable distribution even just in terms of, you know, when i go on grubhub, it's pretty clear that some restaurants have paid more money or done a deal, but there's some reason why some restaurants always come up near the top. it's not a stretch to think that companies with better resources have more chances to exploit that, and it would be more challenging for new businesses to come up. i don't know how to sort of describe that to the planning department, if that's the issue, or -- but i agree with commissioner yakutiel, that however we describe that, it needs to have some oomph behind

it, that that's the concern. and, i mean, that's actually new information to me. i did not know that a major fast-food chain was the number one delivery option for those two services. so for me, even, like, right now, that changes the math a bit in terms of where i see the potential concern is because we definitely want to protect, you know, these unique mom and pop restaurants that are what makes -- it's why many people come here. so dominica, where -- are we making a motion -- >> we're not voting on anything today. >> can i do one more? i'm so sorry. on the city economyist piece, i understand the desire to analyze the terms and kind of what the metrics are, but why

wouldn't we -- if we're going to provide a recommendation to provide an economic analysis, dominica, help me understand, you said it in the way you described it, but you said, the way it's written, it's really about the metrics. can we ask the city economyist to do a more flushed out study how many people are dining out in our city, what apps are being used, what hours? i think, for me, the chicken-or-the-egg question -- we know restaurants are suffering for a lot of reasons. we heard them, but is part of the reason they're suffering is these apps are taking people out of their restaurants and they're eating in their homes or are these apps sort of giving them a buoy? if that's something we could

ask the city analyst, that would be extremely helpful. >> so the way that -- and i am not an economyist. but the way that it's explained to me is we collect sales tax information based on, like, hotel and restaurant sales and these entities are being classified as restaurants, and we can't breakdown those sales between brick and mortar restaurants versus on-line restaurants. so when you go to -- i think it's the open-book s.f. -- or it's under the controller's office, where you can analyze how much sales tax has been collected based on the category, you can't definitively see a specific trend based on what you're describing? and so i think the idea is to

ask the city controller, one, whether or not it's possible to even conduct such an analysis, and if it's not, how can we get there? >> i mean, do other people think that's a good use of time to try to understand that trend because i wouldn't want to waste -- we have a lot of terms of priorities in terms of questions we want answered. >> i think a big determinant of that is what director tumlin was speaking to, the fact that people are working eight hours a day far away, and then, they have to go back to their home. this is the nature of the beast of capitalism that we're in, is it's continually obstructing us from our social environments. i feel that there could be so many factors, and that's what i

know traditionally economyists fear, are those variables. so i feel like it would be worth it to have, like, a consultati consultation, like dominica said, that can give us the answers. >> right, but i don't think there are tools that can give us that information. you have to make it up. you have to figure out the sales tax information, and on that sales tax information, how you break that up? this is a new thing, so you have to go out and figure that out. >> i actually think some of that, like, data, we can find that on, like, private industry, like, not relying on, like, necessarily government data. i know i found a lot of data on, like, kickstarter. they're so excited to get

started, they're going to give you, like, all of this trending data. so maybe if we were able to do a little bit of research themselves on, like, trending data in the delivery app space, i think we would find that on our own in our own kind of, like, places because a lot of that data is available in our city. >> i like that. and i'll just, you know, kind of point out again, i went into that hearing not knowing anything about how the restaurant industry would look at -- look at it overall. i try to be really respectful of them because they're the industry most affected by any decisions or recommendations we might make, and i was really quite surprised to hear them say that this is not really -- you know, we don't look at this as being an issue, and i kept

waiting for other restaurants to step up and say no, it's a huge issue. it seems like to a t, and even when when i talked to other restaurant owners, these delivery apps help them stay in business. so i -- i would recommend that we look for that existing data before we start asking the city controller, who's probably going to be quite busy with more pressing issues. >> yeah. okay. cool. >> one thing that we didn't really talk about in the hearing that i'm kind of curious about is that we're talking about equity, like, equity between, like, small businesses and large businesses. and one of the big things we heard is restaurants are really burdened by permitted and all these different -- permits and all these different fees and things. but labor costs, like, labor costs are really hurting all of our small businesses.

and i look at some of the legislation that's been passed recently, like ab 5. how would that change the picture if, all of a sudden, uber eats had to wake up tomorrow and had 20,000 employees, versus where we're all struggling just to keep five to ten employees employed? so we're talking about a lot of little things, but, like, in this larger picture, how does it look a little bit different, whether it's more equitable to small businesses or not or whatever? like, i'd like to have some sort of understanding as to what the world looks like if all of a sudden these really large companies have to have formal employees that way that we're -- you know, right now, we're talking about taking care of people for basic things like sick leave. when people talk about mandated sick leave, i'm wondering, is that going to be my responsibility also or is that

going to be a government responsibility or whose responsibility? and so i think when we're talking about the restaurant issue, i would like to kind of just explore, i guess, like, what those types of opportunities could be in terms of actual enforcement of things that have already passed. >> i love that you bring that up 'cause that's really my biggest p biggest pet peeve. you know, we start a business, and of course we're going to be successful if we don't have to pay all those fees. amazon, uber. you know, in my neighborhood of color, we used to have gypsy cabs, and then, in the 90s, we

got persecuted. and then, later, all somebody has to do is put it on an app, and pay a fee, and it's cool. that's what you said, the whole formula conditional, they operate in that complexity, and that's how they make money. they can't operate like we operate, so that's what we have to do. >> so, i guess, two thoughts about that, right? in terms of the ghost kitchens we have the opportunity to tour one, and they do have employees, and they're employing -- at least the one that i toured had a lot of employees, and they're well paid. in terms of the delivery services, i think ab 5 has now,

you know, kind of addressed that. it remains to be seen whether it'll have a level playing field, but it is an attempt to address this issue that uber eats and other companies don't have to pay workers comp and sick leave because if you work for them long enough under ab 5, you have to be that person. with respect to what we have in front of us here, my question is, is this something that's not included on this summary memo, and if it's not, should it be, and how should we characterize that? >> i think we want to do

something to stop the bleeding right now. just like what got us here? all the crazy legislation and rules that our legislators passed. we've just got to stop the bleeding from our mom and pop restaurants. just put a little more -- that's what you were saying, commissioner. but this is great for me for now. >> okay. great. so whato's presenting this on e 12? >> regina is. >> okay. so i think we're going to strike the economic analysis part -- oh, no, just forget about it. we'll keep it the way it is. >> yeah. we agreed to do that on our own. >> no, i think we can consult with the controller instead of tell the controller. >> no, the way it's written is fine. i wanted to add more and beef

it up, but i think it's fine. >> commission recommends the controller determine what metrics -- >> that makes sense. it's just asking them to figure out how to study it. it's not asking them to study it. >> it's asking them to provide direction so we can all study it together. >> okay. i won't die on that hill. >> that seems good. >> all right. somebody want to make a motion? to direct the staff to present the document at the hearing on thursday, march 12. >> i make a motion to direct the staff to present the document at the hearing on march 12. >> seconded. >> motion by commissioner hui to support -- to direct staff to present the memo at the special hearing being held on the same topic on march 12, seconded by commissioner

yakutiel. roll call vote. [roll call] >> motion passes, 6-0, with one absent. >> okay. so that brings us to the topic of the day, possibly the big topic of our lives, coronavirus. it has been a -- already had a huge impact on many of our local businesses. we received statements at the start of the hearing already talking about the extraordinary impact that coronavirus is having on businesses. we know from looking at what's

happening in other countries that we are in a very challenging moment, and the next -- the next few weeks, the next few months are really going to be an extraordinary challenge for many of our businesses. and typically, in order to introduce an item, you have to introduce it far enough in advance that there's sufficient public notice. to overcome this public notice, we as a body have to make a determination that there is an emergency that represents a public -- serious threat of public injury, and in this case, the public injury would

be to the businesses that we're charged with representing. so i guess first, dominica, you didn't quite break this up into two, but when i was looking at it, we have to break this up into two. so first, we have to make a finding that this is an emergency that requires our action, and so i will make that motion that we make that finding. >> i second. >> okay. you have to do a roll call on that one. >> the motion that you make the finding -- the motion should be that you're adding an agenda item based on a finding. >> well, first, we have to find -- we have to have the finding, then i guess to make the agenda -- add the agenda item based on the finding. we have to do the finding first. >> so then, there are three motions -- so then, there would be three actions.

>> there would be a finding, and we add an agenda item, and we talk -- i think it's still just two. what's the third one? >> you're making a motion to establish a finding, but you're not saying that you're adding an agenda item based on that finding. >> oh, right. so then, i have to -- >> so if you say the commission finding that there's justification enough to add this agenda item to tonight's meeting. >> all right. >> i think that might cover it for you? >> oh, right, but what's missing here is there actually has to be a vote on the finding that's the emergency. >> mm-hmm. that's the motion, and then, i'll do a roll call vote. >> that's the motion. i don't see it in here. i move to add an item to --

>> yes. that language is pulled directly from the charter. >> all right. when i was looking at the charter, it looked like two separate things, but if you're saying -- i defer to your expertise. >> great. >> then i make a motion to urge the city and county of san francisco to declare a state of emergency on the impact of coronavir coronavirus or covid-19 on small businesses. [roll call] >> motion passes, 6-0, with one absent. >> so we're going to -- so the city -- so we took the roll call. do we have a discussion now or do we do public comment before the discussion? >> you can discuss, take public

comment, discuss again. >> okay. got it. so we'll do a discussion. so my thoughts on this are our leaders, the supervisors, the mayor are facing unbelievable challenges in how to navigate this, and i simply want to give them our strong support and to urge them to move as expeditiously as possible because i think that the health of our small businesses is not just an economic issue. the sma if the small businesses start to go out of businesses, then the workers lose their jobs, and they can't afford their health care, and then, the situation escalates and becomes even more dire. i think a lot of times, tough

challenging issues can be politicized, and i want them to know we're here for the supes, we're here for the mayor and for the community that we exist in. that's my thoughts on this, and i welcome any of your thought or questions on this. >> i agree. >> i've definitely been hearing different types of impact. i think the city can play a role in terms of supporting the l.b.e.s that they work with, local business enterprises that are in contract with the city for multiple things, and the city is starting to cancel all

of these events, caterings and not giving proper notice, like, day of notice, so i think that the city, yeah, should be giving small businesses notice, and that could be a form of mitigation, for example, that we're presenting today. i think the police department should be aware that many small businesses already can't afford to have less closing time because there's been less people coming into the businesses, and there's security issues arising from that. those are just issues that i think the city could play a role in. >> any other commissioner comments? >> when i was trying to give some thoughts around, like, this whole thing because it's such a huge -- it is such a huge impact for all of us right

now, i was reading something -- i think it was, like, three babes bake shop and how their catering business has been hard hit with the loss of orders, and i was -- you know, and it -- it kind of goes back into what we were just talking about in terms of, like, the restaurant industry and things like that. and, you know, a lot of our small businesses are finding ways to really take advantage of the technology sector that we have here, and now that's really been floating a lot of our small businesses. and it's, like, as much as i -- you know, i think we as a city have this, like, tension between the technology -- between, like, the technology sector and our small businesses, but i think many of our small businesses have come to rely on that, right? we're looking at the statement from andy town in front of us, and i think that's something that we need to kind of think a

little bit more about in terms of, like, you know, diversity, like, in our city. our city has really become very reliant on one type of workforce and one time of economic pillar, right? like, that's kind of the anchor to san francisco and the bay area is technology, and a whole sector of people can really go and work from home, behind their computers, and there's a whole sector of people who, like, can't. they have to be there, and i think in the news, this has been highlighted, the inequities. but i think as the commission, i would hope that as we talk more about equity, that this is -- this is another example of kind of maybe why diversity and all these other things can -- can really -- i don't know -- will become more important, i think. >> i'm really frustrated

because i'm not a public health professional, nor do i presume to be, and i know that the people that are making decisions that are affecting small businesses are weighing all sides. and at the same time, you said that there are a cascade of effects when you basically shutdown chunks of the economy. this is, of course, we're talking about it in our city, but italy has shutdown the entire city, closed it down. what's frustrating is i don't understand this virus. my best friend is an e.r. doctor, and i'm talking to her, and she said it's serious. but when you're talking about shutting down businesses and all these layoffs, it's

consequential to people. i'm very worried that in the -- in an effort to slow down the transmission of a virus you know very little about, we are throwing tens of thousands of peoples' lives into melee. and i don't -- that is just a frustration. i'm not saying that anything should necessarily change or be done about it. i think in 72 hours, i lost $15,000 worth of bookings, and i've been talking to a lot of small businesses owners, trying to get our finger on the pulse. i think we're trying to be strong for our communities and our employees, people especially on this commission. but in local communities, we are -- in many ways, we're holding people up, and it has

been hard to stay upbeat and positive and excited when i know that this is possibly just the beginning. but that is what i am doing. the other thing i'll say is, just to put it out there, what -- how this is potentially affecting the large businesses in our city, maybe even more than the small businesses in some ways. you think about the moscone center, the pier buildings, some of these buildings that have massive, massive rents. cancelling some of these events in a peak season could be a devastating event for some of these businesses. so while we represent the small businesses, the level of worry and acti and anxiety, to me, surpasses us and kind of the large businesses that anchor our

city. i'll just say i'm glad we're doing this, and i support it, and thank you, commissioner laguana and dominica for bringing this up. >> let me just say on a personal level, we had 30 or 40 rentals on south by southwest. our business helps artists go on the road and play shows, so it's going to be increasingly difficult for people to have public gatherings. that is an extinction event for us. maybe i'll have to resign. i might not have a business in a month or two, so -- but nonetheless, it's simply an extraordinarily challenging event that none of us have any context or ability to sort of assess. there is no plan for this.

we've never had anything like it in our lives, and i feel really strongly that this is the time to stand with our government and with our leaders and support them. not out of blind loyalty because we really are in this all together, and the only way we're going to get out is all together, and we need to support each other as a body, as citizens, and as members of the city and as members of this country and as members of this planet and help each other get through this -- this time. it's going to be hard. it's going to be really rough, but we've got to be there for each other. so, you know, part of my motivation here is letting our

government, letting our leaders know that we're standing with them, even as we're asking them to stand with us, and i just wanted to -- i just think it's so central to what our responsibility is under the charter to standup and speak for all business. i can't imagine a moment within our lifetime, and that's including 9-11, where everything seemed more on the edge, and so yeah, that's how i feel about it. >> public comment? >> do we -- thank you. do we have any public comment that wish to speak on this? >> good evening, commissioners. i'm amelia lindy. thank you for all you do to

help small business, and thank you for this really important topic. i wasn't sure if this would be covered, but i think it's top of mind for all of us. i'm the small business manager for the san francisco chamber of commerce, and i'm here tonight to try and bring up this topic, because just as you all are facing, the questions are coming in, what if somebody gets sick at my office, and i have 50 other employees? how are we going to make it through the next through months with practically no payroll? how am i going to make payroll? we live in this beautiful city that brings people together for meetings, celebrations, and forums for new ideas. normally, when we make it a situation where people are going to start limiting their gatherings, we're going to see a huge impact across san francisco. so i'm here because i'm concerned for small businesses. we are currently in an almost

unprecedented situation. we need to ensure that our businesses have not only the resources, but they will surely need to remain viable during this challenge, but also the information and tools that they need to support public health. we can all agree that there were -- there are challenges to running a small business in san francisco, even before coronavirus, and we all know there will be challenging to running a small business in san francisco after coronavirus, but what we have to urge our leaders to do is to ensure that we will have the same small businesses that we know and love now here also when coronavirus is gone, so we have to think of anything. provide some relief to policies or restrictions that could help. maybe some relief on business fees, tax extensions, something to get a break, maybe even direct financial support, whan

when this is all over, we have to help our small businesses recover. we can't make coronavirus go away tomorrow, but the one thing the city could do is alleviating uncertainty. thank you so much of for bringing up -- so much for bringing up this really important topic. >> commissioners, do we have a motion to approve a resolution to support small businesses and work together to support the city? >> so moved. >> second. >> motion to approve a resolution to support small businesses. on that motion -- [roll call] >> motion passes 6-0 with one absent. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item 8, commissioners' report.

allows president, vice president, and commissioners to report on recent small business activities and make announcements that are of interest to the small business community. >> do we have any members of the public that wish to speak on this? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have any commissioner reports? >> oh, yeah. >> commissioner zouzounis? >> we are -- our body wrote a resolution a little while back regarding the mandated cans and bottle collections that are coming from cal-recycle that is a state entity, and san francisco has defaulted on, so the burden is falling on small merchants. the media is going to be picking this up at one point soon. i think we need to on circle b

to this as a commission because not only is it the pilot program -- so the context real quick, for those of you that are not aware, we wrote a resolution to kind of expedite this process of alleviating this burden on small businesses and allowing san francisco to adopt a more flexible recycling program for people looking to redeem c.r.v. value, and this was then created as a state initiative to allow san francisco to take some of this revenue that bigger companies like safeway and such, who are paying the in lieu fees instead of collecting the cans and battles. so there's now basically a fund that san francisco has access to, and a pilot program is to be set up to allow mobile recycling or a different type of collection. this has now been stalemated,

and we need to check in on it. in the meantime, merchants that were now previously exempt are now getting letters from the state, saying that exemption is revoked, and small businesses are also receiving, like, $30,000 or plus in delinquent services for the state, because you get fined each day if you don't collect these cans and bottles. even if you do, the state doesn't believe you, and so it's a huge, huge issue that needs to be revisited, and i think the state isn't moving as fast as they should. i've been hearing both reports from media asking and merchants, showing they're revoked. so that's my reported on that.

>> okay. commissioner huie? >> i wanted to report that i attended the san francisco small merchants alliance meeting. it was a really great meeting. i really liked the fact that they invited the chief connectist to talk about business tax -- economyist to talk about business tax. sounds like that particular body wants to ask if small businesses can just be exempt from business taxes 'cause it's just not a large enough revenue source to really make a real impact? instead of, like, just tweaking the numbers, just getting rid of it altogether, like, seemed to be their ask.

so i heard a little bit about what the commission does, and that was another meeting where, you know, i think sharing what the commission does simply was, like, enough and just kind of getting them know, like, we're here. and they really wanted to just revoice, too, that, you know, they have a very unique set of goals, and they are a unique organization, and that, you know, i am happy to talk to them, you know, more, so i was really grateful for that. >> awesome. i'm so glad you went. commissioner yakutiel. >> two. i ran for the board of the valencia commercial corridor businesses, and i won. i just wanted to publicly thank commissioner huie for having

brunch at manny's this weekend and coming in as i dealt with lots of orders and cappuccinos, so i wanted to thank you for bringing your family to have brunch at my spa. thank you. >> thank you. anybody else? do we have any members of the public who wish to speak on commissioner reports? seeing none, comment closed. next item. >> item 9, new business. allows commissioners to introduce new agenda items for future consideration. discussion item. >> commissioner yakutiel? >> so i had names of three businesses that were on my phone. two are social home and kitchen in either the richmond or sunset, and then, this place called odd dog in the frog.

it's a bar that's -- >> mad dog in the fog? >> mad dog in the fog, and i think it's been here for a really long time. those are the businesses that are closing that i would like to adjourn in honor of if possible. >> i would agree. i'd like to add one special group to that, which is i would also like to close in honor of all the medical workers who are assisting coronavirus victims and will be assisting coronavirus victims, especially locally and, you know, now with the ship docking in oakland, i think that, well, a special shoutout for them. i would also say, under new business, that at our next session, it is likely that we will have legislation from the

board to consider. i believe that they're crafting and drafting mitigation -- coronavirus mitigation. we may also consider the chamber of commerce has drafted a letter on behalf of the many business groups. we may choose to make some recommendation to the board based on that letter based on whatever legislation winds up being crafted. i just wanted to give you a heads up that that is likely to be coming up at the next meeting. okay. anybody else? okay. do we have any public comment on new business? seeing none, public comment closed. >> sfgovtv. please show the office of small business slide. >> welcome.

it is our custom to begin and end each small business commission meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco, and the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in san francisco. the office of small business should be your first stop when you have a question about what to do next. you can find us on-line or some person here at city hall. best of all, all of our services are free of charge. the small business commission ask the official public forum to state your concerns about the small business policy in san francisco. if you have questions that need to be answered, start here at the office of small business. >> item 10, adjournment, action item. >> so moved. >> second. >> meeting is adjourned at 7:41 p.m.

shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine

of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial. without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you know, it would be a shame to see

that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle. at the retail end, we about a

lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing.

disabilities and adult services meeting. may i have the secretary take the roll. [ roll call ] >> executive director mcfadden is present. at this time, we ask you silence all sound producing devices and cell phones. >> may i have a motion to approve the agenda. >> so moved. >> do we have a second? any discuss in all in favor. any opposed? motion carries. may i have a motion to approve the february 5th, 2020, meeting minutes? thank you. do i have a second. >> second. >> any discussion? all in favor. any opposed?

thank you. the motion carries. now i would like to introduce our newest commissioner, nelson lum, who'll tell us about his background. >> thank you. mr. chair, fellow commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, good morning, my name is nelson lum, and i'm the newly appointed member of this commission. i've been a resident since 1961, and i went to school here. upon graduation from george washington high school, in 1966, i was soon notified by uncle sam that he had a special interest in me. i was inducted in the army where i volunteers to be a member of the paratrooper unit, and after training, i was assigned to kentucky with 101st airborne division. in 1967, my division was deployed to vietnam. luckily, i returned in november 1968, with all my fingers and my

toes. i took advantage of the gi bill and completed a degree in criminology. i then joined the san francisco police department where i served for 30 years until my retirement in 2005 with a rank of sergeant of police. since retired, i've been devoting most of my time with "american legion" where i participated with assisting veterans. it's thage laest veteran organization in our country with 2.5 million members. the main mission of the legion is to assist veterans with benefit claims along with providing generations of veterans. there are ten posts in san francisco. with the exception of one, they are at the veterans building across from city one. there's post 384 that was formed exclusively by chinese-american veterans back in 1931. the membership exclusiveness was

not by choice. confronted with discrimination against asian and chinese americans in particular, such as chinese exclusion act, the chinese-american veterans were not welcome to join the post at that time. thus, the formation of their own post in 1948, the members of the post voted and contributed to the purchase of the building located at 1524 powell street. i have been honored to serve as the post commander for four years. i am currently representing the district which covers all ten "american legion" posts at the state level. that's enough about me. i must confess that even though i have been doing a lot of reading about this commission since my a appointment, i'm nowhere near caught up with all the information necessary to render myself in the effective overseer. i will do my best to learn more

about this commission and the responsibilities that encompasses. when i sat in to observe last month's meeting, i heard references to how the budget of this commission has grown over the years. my thought was and is, well, it is a blessing to have a larger budget. it is far more important to measure our success by how effectively that money was being utilized to help those who are in need. so that will be my guideline as i join my fellow commissioners to implement the goals of this commission. thank you. >> thank you very much, commissioner lum. i'm sure you're going to be a worth while addition to our commission and help with the services we perform. the next item on the agenda is the director's report. >> good morning, commissioners. welcome commissioner lum. looking forward to working with

you. as usual, i will start with the federal level. last month, i said that by this time, we would probably see that the senate had re-authorized on its side the older americans act. however, that has not quite happened yet. what did happen is they -- there was a long awaited reauthorization of the national caregiver bill which provides residence busines -- respite se, so that was exciting, but we're working to advocate for the older americans act to pass. it's really focused on that. i will be assuming that it happens. i will be going to washington, d.c. in two weeks for the national association meeting and also for the policy briefing that i go to each year and bridget is working to schedule visits with our representatives in washington.

so it's always a good opportunity to talk about the great work we're doing in san francisco and in california, rally along with other california triple-a directors, you know, at the capital. so looking forward to that visit. at the state level, there are a couple of budget items that have been introduced and are being advocated for that would really help our services and help put some more money into some of our services. the first is there's a big budget ask for an enhancement to adult protective services. it would increase the adult protective services budget in california by 100 million. it would provide for different things. one of them would be that it would enhance the home safe program which is, as you know, we're doing in san francisco, and it's a way of really preventing homelessness for

older adults who need extra services, who need intensive case management or who need to move into assisted living. it's really a partnership with homeless services. it would also enhance the training opportunities and it would also allow for adult protective services to be able to keep cases a little bit longer. so they're seeing more complex cases. they need a longer intervention. it would allow for that. i'm going to sacramento tomorrow to testify on behalf of the california welfare director's association and as, of course, the director in san francisco to talk about how important this is. it will be before the senate budget subcommittee tomorrow. also at the state level, there is a request from the california association of area agencies on aging to enhance the aging and disability resource center connection funding.

that is a model that we use in san francisco, and we've been lauded for our hub model that we have here. the aging and disability resource connection really integrates aging and disability by providing information, referral, and assistance for services that are for people with disabilities and older adults. we have done that here. we have an effective relationship between our area agency on aging that sits within our department and the independent living resource center. paragraph paragrapthere's a lota connection in every county or at least in every triple-a across the state. this big ask -- i'm not exactly sure what the dollar amount is. we're still working on the dollar amounts on that ask. it would be a substantial infusion of money for that program so that it can really effectively work throughout the state. one of the biggest things that we know is that, you know, older people and people with

disabilities don't know how to access services. this is a statewide problem, and developing the hub model in every triple-a would really help with that problem. it allows us to work as a network across the state to, you know, use best practices for information, referral, and assistance and outreach and be sure californians know about the services that they need. then at the local level, i think the big conversation -- this is actually -- should be at the knowledge level, too, but at the local level right now, we're really doing a lot of work around covid-19. the coronavirus is most dangerous to older people, people with diabetes and asthma, and as people get older, it's people 55 and older most at risk, but of course as people get older, in their 80s and 90s, they are more at risk. there are issues around people

living in congregate living. san francisco just received testing kits on monday and has the ability to test now, and so the assumption is that we may have a positive case sometime soon. i think mayor breed is -- has been proactive in declaring a state of emergency so that it puts us in a position where we can activate the emergency response system. we have people at the emergency operations center every day. we have two staff there who are going to be there on a two-week stent. they are there every day getting information, bringing information back to the department, and helping to inform practices around, you

know, how do we think about ensuring that older adults are safe? how do we ensure our staff in communities are safe, out in homes, all of those things. so it's a rapidly changing environment, and so the main -- i think the main messaging is, if you're sick, stay at home. wash your hands, wash your hands, wash your hands. don't shake hands. it's simple messaging because just like any flu or any virus, we need to treat it seriously. so that's been a lot of the energy over the past week or so. a couple of other things coming up. one is this year is the 30th anniversary of the americans with disabilities act. the das will not working with the mayor's office, senior disability action, and a number of other disability groups on disability pride event.

it's very exciting that we're going to be part of that. april 14th is national health care decisions day, and just like last year, das is involved along with the palliative care work group in supporting a number of events throughout the city through the libraries to really create conversations and discussions around advanced care planning. we, again, have had some people back out of that, of some of those events muc. we're going forward. if we need to cancel them, we will, and we'll think about another way. maybe, you know, a webinar or something that we can do if we have to cancel those events. but right now, we're moving forward with that april 14th national health care decisions day group of events. then one other thing that we are involved in is our city put out a grant opportunity for cities

to apply for funding to really look at financial empowerment for people with disabilities, and so mayor's office of disability and thriving in place, nonprofit thriving in place, and d aos came together and said this is something we should really look at and we decided it would be great to do a road map of financial empowerment opportunities in san francisco, kind of an asset mapping exercise so we know what do we have here and what are our gaps. so it's an initial grant that allows us to look at those services, kind of identify what we need to do next and then hopefully go back for a bigger grant so that we can actually make some headway in providing financial services for folks with disabilities. that's a really exciting partnership that we're embarking on. i think -- unless there are

questions, i think that's all i have for today. >> thank you. i have a couple of observations, questions. i think the potentially increased funding for the adult protective services is good news. i hope it's realized, but it triggered another thought. how is the city implementing the increased conservatorship options for people who are severely troubled? many of whom are on our sheets. >> the housing conservatorship bill passed, and the city is working very hard to get it in place to implement it. so, you know, it seems like it would be very simple to just enact that, but there are a number of steps that have to be taken when you change law. so it comes down sometimes to the forms that you're using. so the court has been involved in working on the forms.

the city attorney has to agree to the forms. the public defender has to agree to those forms. our staff and the department of public health staff have worked really hard to come together to move this forward and it's frustrating a little bit because the legal ease piece takes time. we're moving forward, and looking forward to being able to have our first test case really soon. >> thank you. and then on the coronavirus, it's wonderful that the city is being as proactive as it can. but i'm sure everyone is aware of the impact on tourism in the city of the canceled flights and foreign visitors and so forth as well as domestic travel. has any assessment been made of the potential impact on the budget and our revenues from the coronavirus and what that may do to our department and their budget? >> i believe the mayor's budget office and the controller's office are looking at that

closely, certainly have mentioned it, and i know that they probably have gathered a lot of information already. i am not privy yet to what those projections are. >> thank you. any other comments or questions from the commission? okay. thank you very much. the next item is employee recognition. the das commission and executive director will honor from the public conservator. [ applause ] >> how are you doing? you're popular. you have a huge following here today. so we just talked about conservatorship. it's a great segue much the

public conservator's office works with people who are unable to care for their own needs due to serious mental illness. one of the things that is true about them is they have so much skill, so many people skills. right? they work with people who are very, very hard to serve, and i've talked to a lot of them. they actually have such good connections with the people they work with and they care very much about their clients. i know it's really not easy -- it's a work i would find hard to do. i'm always really impressed with the work of social workers that we have in the public conservator's office as well as the people who support them in the management. so it's a great group of people. it's a really diverse group of people, and at the same time that they are doing the hard work they're doing -- they're on the same floor as i am. and so i get to see them enjoying each other's company and really supporting each other, and they are really strong group. i think, you know, it takes

that. when you're doing the hard work that you're doing and you come back and you can be joyful and laugh and have fun and eat together, that's what makes a really good strong group of social workers. i just want to thank all of you for the work that you do. it's a changing environment and there's a lot of pressure on the conservator to be the answer. right? and so i just think that all of you have extreme grace under pressure, and i just want to thank you for what you do. today we're talking about mike in particular. mike, not only -- not just one person wrote about you, but two people did. i get to read what two people wrote. i've known mike since i came in to the public guardian. what of the things he did immediately is he wanted to become a licensed clinical social worker, and he worked really hard at it. he didn't just say, well, i'll wait and think about it. he jumped right in, got the consultation, did the work he

needed to do, and then moved over to the you can public conservator. but he was great when i was in the public guardian. all of his coworkers enjoyed working with him and felt supported by him, felt his professionalism and he's carried that into this job. so i'm going to talk about -- i won't call them out, but i'm going to -- you'll see because i'm going to hand this to you. from one of your colleagues, why he should be the employee of the month. i'm nominating mike because of his body of work over the past decade, working for the city, including time at the public guardian. in his current role, he has taken on a leadership role and not a critical source of stability and support to allful our coworkers. he takes difficult situations in stride, works to develop understanding and better communication within the office, and regularly supplies our team meetings with sugar to keep us going. [ laughter ] personally, i've appreciated he's willing to contain situations escalated by other

providers and remain a firm defender of the role and values. then from another colleague of yours, mike is a true team player who works to ensure that his clients and colleagues are succeeding. during a period of transition, mike has stepped up and provided leadership and guidance to the team all the while successfully managing a heavy workload. he exemplifies the das core of value and inclusion. it's noteworthy that despite many stressors, he remains calm while keeping the needs of our clients as a top priority. he's passionate about protecting vulnerable people and driven by the work he carries out. mike is an excellent role model for others at das and he is absolutely deserving of the employee of the month recognition. [ applause ] >> congratulations on being employee of the month for march.

>> i just want to say that this was very unexpected, and i just really do appreciate it and i'm very honored to be employee of the month. i also want to say a big thank you to the lps team. they are a very resilient, dedicated team, and i'm really happy to be working with them. i just want to say thank you to jill who has been a great leader and support as well as kerry, cassandra and jason. the work that we do is challenging. the impact is ever lasting. i just want to say thank you. it's very heartfelt.

[ applause ] >> the next item is the advisory council report. diane lawrence. welcome, diane. >> good morning, commissioners. welcome commissioner lum. because this is a long agenda, i'm going to make this as brief as possible since i have three reports to give. then i'll detail it that you'll get in the minutes as i've done in the past. so the advisory council met on a regular meeting in february. we had a representative from the community living campaign who made a quick presentation on their cracked sidewalks and we'll have a full presentation in march. based on the recommendation from this commission's meeting in february, we drafted letters to our -- the joint legislation

committee agreed. we presented it to the advisory council to prepare letters -- to send letters to our representatives, congresswoman pelosi and spear and then senators feinstein and harris. the reports focused on the data and evaluation report which included ethnic breakdowns on meal programs and i'll include the details later. we had our second review which took up the area plan on aging, which took up most of our meeting and was quite a lively discussion. you'll have that report later. so i won't go into those details. dr. edelman for the lgbt updates discussed the master plan for aging for which she is

participating adds a commission on aging at the state level member. she's discussing the equity work group and the group's purpose is to examine the development and implementation of the plan, looking at social -- health and social disparity issues with the focus on the equity lens and dr. edelman is on that work group. and then we were -- she announced she had been -- she announced she had been awarded the woman of the year award for district 17. so we were quite excited about that. there were no site visits given our time was taken up with an area plan and robust discussion. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions? okay. joint legislative committee. >> the joint leg met prior to our meeting. it's a committee that's jointly -- it's a joint committee between commission members and the advisory council

members. so a number of the bills that we looked at last year and that are included are sitting with budget, in appropriations. the governor has asked the bills with possible expenditures have to be looked at in light of the budget and make sure that there's money to go with them. so we'll probably see a lot of bills sitting with budget asks. there are a couple new bills that were just coming out, and there probably will be additional bills next month because we've just passed the last day to introduce a bill. we spent some time reviewing the details of the older americans act, but i'll detail the bills so that you have them in your minutes. >> thank you. and last but not least. >> quarterly meeting last wednesday and thursday, and i

will add it's a group of representatives from the 33 psas. i'll give you background for the new commissioner so you understand. we typically meet two days, a day and a half, four times a year. oftentimes the meetings are in line with -- scheduled so that they back up against another event. so this time, the second day of our meeting was the c4as capital day. we focused a lot on business. we had an update on the commission on -- from the california commission on aging, spent a lot of time talking about the master plan, obviously. the first deliverable of the master plan was posted last wednesday. so that's progress and that's on the long-term support and services stakeholder reports. it's a high level report with a bold vision and looks at long-term care workforce.

we were reminded that the minutes and webinar meeting information was posted on the engage website so that all of the information is available for people to look at. we established an ad hoc plan committee, and that was to align our work with that of the commission to look at venues, revenue, and that work will begin in the summer, and i volunteered to be part of that. we had a presentation on elder abuse and mandated reporting, which dovetails in elder care and the variations around the state. so the point of increasing the funding is important. one of the things that came up twice in the meeting is the fact there were discrepancies between federal, state, and the department of labor definitions of older adult. so the federal law says 60.

the state says 65 as does medicare. the department of labor says 50. so this does make for -- i didn't realize there were that many discrepancies. the bar association has addressed -- has a national american bar association has expanded their rules to allow attorneys to report without the client's consent in cases of elder abuse, to report -- the california bar association has not adopted those new rules. one thing i thought that was important in the dovetails with director mcfadden's report is that one-third of the reports of abuse are repeat. so keeping accounts, keeping the cases longer might make a difference. that's on a statewide level. we had reports from the various ps as. who were asked to make a quarterly report. areas are looking at planning

events. they are surveying seniors, disaster preparedness continually comes up as i've mentioned before. some tax preparation activities in the communities. thought we would begin talking about coronavirus. one of the psas is looking to get a program which dove taled into our last presentation of the first day which was on workforce and aging. we also have a quick presentation on the ombudsman program and how it dovetails in increased funding so more visits can be made. the other thing that struck me is the assisted living facility licensing is annual, and then the -- we talked about the

presentation from the c4a executive director on the area agencies in the master plan. this was something that director mcfadden spoke about and also the increased funding that she mentioned earlier. then employment communities, senior community employment program, older workers training. these are programs to get older adults either continuing in the workforce or find jobs much like we did with the workforce job fair last year. employers that have been surveyed found they were more loyal. they also had greater institutional knowledge which many organizations are finding. so there are a number of programs throughout the state with some money and more

details. our next meeting is in may, and that will start with senior rally day on may 11th. then on day two, we meet on the capitol, and i went to visit some of our local legislators with director mcfadden and cindy kaufman. >> thank you very much, diane. any comments or questions? thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> next item is long-term care coordinating council report. welcome. >> good morning, commissioners. i don't know some of the new commissioners. i will say i'm the program director of the long-term care ombudsman program in san francisco. it's a contract through das and hsa. thank you. we met on the 13th of february, and let me start with

the action items first because that's kind of crucial for future planning. there were two action items. dr. julie leshae is going to okay identify the hiv aids seat, and she's presently the director of housing, aging, and retention and care department at the sf aids foundation. she's focused on design, implementation, and expansion of programs. she's a worthy nominee to occupy that eat on the long-term care coordinatetion council and we all look forward to her input and her spreading our involvement from the council to individuals that she's working with. the second action item is that the council will only meet six times a year, every other month, and following recommendations from retreat i think we had in 2017, '18, around there, the

work groups are going to fulfill a dominant role in reporting out to the long-term care coordinator and council when it does meet. those work groups are behavioral health, housing, nutrition, social engagement, transportation, and workforce. each one will be focusing on certain issues that are really important, and it's sort of -- i would urge that commissioners go online and look at some of their reports. for instance, the report from the behavioral health group is rather detailed in terms of working with the deaf community, in terms of behavioral health, and having a position in terms of discussing future planning for unmet behavioral health needs and gap analysis. they have members that are both from the council and also from

outside of the council. that's a very robust work group. the main work group is going to be what's called the steering committee, and that's going to meet once a month. i think the next meeting is on the 13th of march, this month, and it's an incarnation to earlier work groups, policy and finance and the old steering committee which were merged. they will look at issues such as financing, policy recommendations, and, of course, all of their recommendations will go into the agenda setting for the long-term care coordinating council as well as other presentations. so those are the two action items. there was a dignity report made, and there's an rfp going to be released, probably has already, for case management evaluation. there's also an open bid, nine

providers applied by supervisor district. that will focus on needs assessment and those particular districts, there's a disparity between services in some districts and not in other districts. so this will be raising all the votes with this rfp and neighborhood services. then there's some rfps on what's called collectivity or connection which will focus on applicants to extend connection to isolated persons with disability who are aging and focus on loneliness and social isolation. there's been some work by medical doctors at ucsf about the effects of social isolation and loneliness on the sense of personal wellness because of the lack of connection.

there's great literature on that. finally, our funds for transgender were released to build up the services, open house and one other served some money to outreach and provide services to transgender individuals who are, perhaps, the most isolated of the lgbt community in terms of their political leverage. there was a presentation by dr. laura wagner on the workforce, and it was a rather interesting powerpoint. i wish the supervisors could actually review it. i don't really want to summarize all the slides. she did an evaluation of where the shortages are in certain key positions, rn, lvn, housekeeping

as it relates to long-term care. but she also, very interestingly, came up with new kinds of categories of care. for instance, a dementia care coordinating specialist, which would be either additional job for someone who has an msw or rn as well as other care coordination. so her recommendations are in terms of the future as the informal care giving by family members is diminishing over time, she had a graph going into 2050 about the loss of family caregivers. that's a nationwide statistic she presented in the powerpoint. family caregivers are not available anymore. she's projecting a need for all these specialized caregivers for long-term care. she did talk about cnas and individuals in skilled nursing and how they are also -- there's

also a labor shortage there. part of it is because of low wages and the fact that it's a pretty difficult job for such low wages. some of us in the group raised questions that were raised by -- there's a famous writer about home care workers, care workers in the community who are not part of the professional class of workers and whether or not she had looked into that. her study was limited to the professionals basically. so that's an as needed thing. there's been a lot of work on increasing the labor force for ihss and the parameters of scarcity are they can't afford to live in the bay area. it's a long commute. what incentives will be needed? that hopefully will be a future study. so that was a really interesting

and germane focus on the workforce. the other committees didn't have much to report at this juncture. but the idea is with the two -- with the one action item, that they will meet monthly and actually report out. so all the members of the council are going to be busy going to workshops and tackling social isolation for behavioral health. some of us will be on the steering committee, and i think that's it. if i missed anything, okay. thank you. >> thank you for that comprehensive report. any comments or questions? thank you. next item is the case report, craig moore. >> good morning, commissioners and executive director

mcfadden. i'm not craig moore. i'm the director of san francisco senior center. i thought i retired, but i'm still here. so i will be as brief as possible. i'll be reading, i apologize, because this is greg's report. he's not feeling well. so in february, case advisory committee met and continued planning in preparation of phase two of our advocacy campaign. it consists of a petition that will be online and in hard copy with our budget funding request that we took to das in december. we'll be meeting with city supervisors. the bucket office, and hopefully the mayor's office. we'll be asking our member agencies to collect signatures as they did last year. we have versions in english, spanish, chinese, vietnamese, russian, and tagalog. last year, collected over 3,000

petitions. this year we're hoping for 5,000. phase three will be our annual rally at city hall, and repeat visits to supervisors in conjunction with the budget justice coalition. our february meeting, we had a very informative transportation panel with sfmta's accessibility services. we also are in deep preparation and planning and discussion of our 2020 getting there together event. i don't know if all of you were there, but i'm sure most of you are aware that we held this last year with all of our organizations and city organizations, park and recreation. we all came together and we'll be doing that again on sunday, september 13th, celebrating adults with disability and those of us working in aging.

we're right now finalizing the response or report from last year and the packet looking for sponsors for this year. i am stepping down as cochair in part of my semi retirement and dan gallagher of steppingstone is stepping up. so greg and dan will be cochairs of case and patty, the treasurer, christina irving, the secretary. this was the part where greg was going to loud me, but because he's not here, i get to loud him. so let me just say because it's a public forum, that greg moore is one of the finest advocates and person of service in san francisco working with adults with disabilities and those who are over 60. he's tireless. he's ever present, and i want to thank him for what he does.

and then this next meeting that we have, our membership meeting will have mason smith, public affairs manager for cruz, which is a vehicle company. they're going to talk to us about what they want to do in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions? thank you again. item number five, any old business? item number six, new business. and we will begin with a presentation and review of the fiscal year 2021-2024 area plan for the california department of aging. thank you. welcome. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm rose johns. i'm a planning analyst with the human services agency. today i'm before you with director mcfadden to present an overview of the area plan.

you should have received a copy of that in the mail early last week. hopefully you've had a chance to look. our presentation is informational. we want to share information, get your input, and then we will return next month seeking your approval of the final plan. today our presentation will begin with an overview of the purpose of this plan. i will share some highlights from the large 22-section report. then director mcfadden will touch on our goals and objectives. so the area plan is required by the older americans act. it's submitted to the state department of aging every four years. the purpose of the plan is to outline how the department will use older americans act funding to support seniors in the community and how the department will be working to coordinate the service system in san francisco.

in the interim years between the four-year plan, we provide an annual update. we present that here to the advisory council and then send it up to the state. i want to also note this plan is focused primarily on senior services, the older population, but much of what we talk about also does extend to the younger population of adults are disabilities that the department serves. i wanted to share just a time line that represents where we're at in the process. we're currently in the last year of the current area plan. we are working on the area plan that will cover 2021 through '24 and that's due to the state on may 1st. we also wanted to put this plan in context for you. as both an area agency on aging and a city department, das undertakes three planning efforts. it's sometimes confusing to see how they fit together. as