business. >> this is the special meeting

of the small business submission on wednesday, may 27th. the meeting is called to order at 1:01 p.m. phowe thank media services and sf gov tv which can be viewed on sf gov tv or livestream. members of the public is (888)273-3658 and the access code is 310745.

(inaudible). >> the members of the public will be calling in (888)273-6538 and access code is 310-3752. when prompted dial 1-20 be added to the speaker line and it will indicate that callers are entering the question and answer time but this is the public comment. if you call in before public comment is called, you'll be added to the cue. please mute the device you're listening to the meeting on. when it's your time to speak, you'll be prompted to do so. it's three minutes per speaker or otherwise established bit speaker. please show the office of small business slide. interest we will start with the reminder the small business commission can voice your

concern about policies that affect the small businesses in san francisco. and that the office of small business is the best place to get answers about doing business in san francisco, particularly in this local emergency. if you need assistance with small business matters particularly at this time, find us online or via telephone. as always, our services are free of charge. before item number one is called, i would like to thank media services and sfs gov tv for coordinating the livestream please call item number one. you're muted. >> call to order and role call, commissioner adams. (role call) 11.

>> you have a quorum. >> call item number 2. >> 200455, emergency ordinance, temporary right to reemployment following covid-19 pandemic. and emergency ordinance temporarily creating a right to employment for certain employees laid off due to the covid-19. if their employer seeks to fill the same position by a laid-worker. the discussion and action item. the presenter is edward wright, legislative aid to gordon mar. >> wonderful. welcome edward. we are pleased to have you here and would you like to make your

presentation? >> i'm happy to. >> supervisor mar is the author before you today. thank you to the office of small business for your feedback and thank you to the small business commissioners for taking the time at this spent meeting to discuss the back-to-work ordinance with us today. i'm talk about a couple of different things and first, i want to share the background of why we introduced this ordinance and moving it forward. i want to share the details about what the ordinance currently written does and i want to talk about amendments that we're preparing to change the scope of the ordinance in response to feedback from stakeholders, includes a number of the members of this commission and finally, any additional feedback on what the feedback has to share with us.

this crisis is a state of emergency for laid-off workers and the pace is greaterrer than the great depression and 1-10 people in san francisco have lost their jobs representing tens of thousands of livelihoods in economic uncertainty. consequences of long-term employment included that the evidence of job loss is clear and that could lead to loss of next in the short-term to lower wages in the long-term and result in physical health and mortality rates for workers who lost their jobs and further, it

hampers children's educational process and workers who lose their job involuntarily experience worse health outcomes and during severe downturns, it could lead to life reduction of 1.2 years and that it might -- r pai.(inaudible). >> we know this ordinance is bull because we feel we have to be bull to address the urgency of our unemployment crisis. this ordinance is a novel policy area and it's so because the circumstances we face are novel. and this ordinance is an emergency ordinance because the crisis we face is urgent, too.

still, we make significant and substantive amendments to narrow the scope of the ordinance. in feedback, we've heard from the sector and specifically from small business owners. so first, i wanted to briefly talk about the ordinance as it's written before talking through some of the amendments we're preparing. i want to say we don't have the amendments drafted to share with the commission today and i'm happy to share the copy of the minutes as soon as we have the draft. in a current version of the emergency ordinance, workers have the right of first refusal for their jobs if and when their former employer are reopens and rehires. this would be prioritized by seniority in each job classification and it requires comparative wages, scheduling and benefits unless the employer is unable to maintain terms in

which case they are affected. this requires employers to provide notice to the city of layoffs of the workers and provide them with information on available city resources as a part of the requirements. in terms who is covered, the emergency ordinance is currently written and applies this to any employer laying off ten or more employees starting on february 25th, 2020, the date of the emergency. and it does not cover employers of fewer than ten employees and does not cover employers who do not lay off ten or more employees in ten or more days or contractors and collective

bargaining agreements. there's a waiver included. any questions and i will talk through amendments that we're preparing, as well. >> commissioners, any questions for edward? >> i say keep going. i have one quick question. but commissioner ukudio has a question, as well. >> thank you, edward. in the bill, how do we prepare e an employer is not able to rehire folks back? yes, that was most likely reset by regulations to the issue by the office of labor standard's enforcements. it wasn't something in the ordinance. >> how did you come up with ten employees? >> we looked at the healthcare

security ordinance and what those acts with the mass layoff, which was roughly half of the number of employees at a distance and, then, took the 20 employees as the threshold to help their security ordinance and took half of that. that was representing a mass layoff. >> i missed the last part. did other people hear that? >> can you repeat the last point, please? >> yes. so, basically, taking half -- (inaudible). >> half by the healthcare security ordinance. >> i just have one more. why seniority? >> seniority is a common standard in right-to-recall language for employees and so we're taking the most frequent standard that exists and

recalling what already exists and then expanding the application to additional workers. >> ten employees is the right amount of people for this work? >> i'm happy to talk about amendments to address that point. >> are there any other commissioner questions? seeing none, i have a question. regarding the ten or more employees in the draft originally as it's currently written, it says ten employees nationally, globally, in california or in san francisco? >> ten employees locally. >> globally. and finally, ten people in nashville, where i have ten employees, i would have to notify san francisco.

>> you would not. they would not be ann titled to reemployment. >> if i laid off nine employees in nashville and one in san francisco, i would have to notify the city with represent to the one employee? >> i don't think so. i think it would be triggered by ten layoffs in san francisco. >> that's definitely what you just said, so earlier you said ten globally, but now it's ten only in san francisco? >> so there's two definitions being referred to and one is the employer definition and that's defined as ten employees globally, but the layoff definition is ten or more employees, meaning san francisco workers laid off within a 30-day period. there ok, thank you for that clarification. please proceed. >> thank you. and so what we know that workers are facing a crisis right now, so a small businesses. we know small businesses need

support now more than ever and i'll be sharing some of the changes we'll be making to this ordinance to specifically address the concerns that we heard from small business owners. i did want to share with the commission that our office is actively working on legislation to waive business registration and business fees most impacted by the covid-19 crisis and we hope to have a date on that that i can share with you soon. i did want to mention that we have spoken with more business stakeholders in this legislation, including dozens of small business owners, the san francisco commerce, community on jobs, the san francisco hospital hospital, among others. we know this is the life blood of our city and they are facing a central crisis and after i go through the amendments we're proposing, if you have

additional feedback, i would appreciate this opportunity. so for the amendment, we are intending to amend the definition of employer to exempt employers with fewer than 75 employees and this would be tying the definition back to the act of neglec flexibility with state-wide employees and the definition of employer to exempt healthcare operation's employers as defined in the april 29t april 29th order of the public health officer. and that would include most public hospitals. further, we intend to amend the employee definition to exempt employees who are making more than 100% or 120% of the median income as defined by housing and

community development. in addition, we intend to amend the reemployment revisions to provide exemption for making the reemployment offer based on the information of misconduct found for former employees. if an employee discovers a former worker committed misconduct, they would be exempt and that exemption would apply to the terms and after bringing back a worker facing misconduct, you are exempt from having to employ them. that would include severance agreements, so laid off workers entering so severance agreement and this right to employment is not apprized of that. and finally, we would be amending the notification requirements, removing section 5a4 and section 5a5 entirely.

these, we understand, to be the most burdensome administrative requirements for the businesses applied to, as well as to the office of layer standard's enforcements, so this is essentially the optimum requirements. and then, finally, to allow for notification by email or text before mail so that businesses only have to mail if that's an ox. option. i'm happy to answer my questions on this that i just talked through. >> any questions? while we wait, we have two questions for you.

with respect to employment being exempt if there's evidence of misconduct, how would an employer establish this misconduct? what the burden here that you te employer has to meet to establish that misconduct? >> we don't have the language forecastedrafted yet and i'm noi can answer that specifically. but the intention that would it would be some kind of evidence that would be demonstrating that everything is caught up that happened. and so that could be theft, it could be misrepresentation of facts and any number of examples of misconduct. >> but at this point, you can't give us any information that we could provide to employers about how they would satisfy the

requirement, whatever evidence would be required? >> we don't have that amendment drafted yet. another question, but i will defer to my colleagues first. >> hi, edward and thank you for coming today. i am curious about your outreach. you had mentioned to get to this, you had spoken to more businesses or business organizations and stakeholders than you ever had and i'm kind of curious as to what their overall responses were and what type of interaction you had with them. >> thank you for that question there was a range of responses to the ordinance all the way from support. we did speak with a number of small businesses in our district who support ordinances to outright opposition. and i think there were a diverse

until of concernnumber of conce. we are hoping to address these concerns and we heard from a lot of small businesses, which is why we landed on small businesses and we've heard from quite a few healthcare providers with the current health circumstances that they felt that the healthcare sector should exempted, which is why we've included that exemption and to, then, we've heard concerns about not having the kind of misconduct exemption we're working on to ensure that there is offramps for those job offers and a good reason to not issue employment offer. >> so can i ask, with all of these amendments or exemptions, who are you hoping to really be able to, like -- i don't know. who is going to be compliant and

who is going to be retain these jobs the way they want? so with these amendments, this ordinance will still apply to any san francisco employer with more than 75 employees and laid off ten or more workers within 30 day, based on the applications we already have and the unemployment numbers that are trickling in, we expect that that will apply to thousands of san francisco workers. and even with the ami narrowings, we're focusing more on workers and expect there are thousands. >> and those businesses that would apply to, are they in favour of your legislation? >> i'm not sure in their i in favor. we understand that that our small businesses would be the

most burdened by this, which is why we're purple this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner dooley. >> hi. i wanted to ask about the seniority and how you would be asking people to determine that. i know that i work in restaurants as i'm a fluoresce d i see many people come is go for awhile and come back and then i'm just wondering whether they're cumulative time in that business will count as where they would be in the seniority order or not. it's something i've seen a lot in restaurants. >> it would be determined by the date of hire for determining employment that was severed.

so your most recent. >> commissioner ozunis. >> new for being here, edward. i'm representing the supervisor's office. and i mean, yes, if anything is most important in this crisis, it's class and the need for our workers to be supported and as small businesses are often one in the same as workers, i think it's important to consider the good will piece and kind of the realities of small businesses are going to be calling people that they ed thi they had to le. it takes a lot of money and ti time. sometimes the posts don't get hit and so, i think that small

businesses are really going to comply wit intent of this either way and i just -- (inaudible). >> a couple of questions i have, february 25th, when the order was in place, that was the next month and why the february 25th date of this start date? i do have some concerns with the oast -- (background noise). >> commissioner, wil while you'e talking, if you could turn down the speaker, because your microphone is feeding back into your microphone and turn the speakerrer back up.

the requirements to the city are waived and those are some of the questions that i have. >> thank you for that question. i'll take that in turn. and so, first, as to why february 25th, was chosen as a start day for flexibility, that was the date public health emergency was declared and that is predated with the shelter-in-place order.

however, we've heard from workers, as well alzheimer's ase employers prior to the shelter-in-place being ordered in response to the public health emergency and so that is why that date was chosen. and in terms of the burden of proof of small businesses, small businesses would be exempt to hire. this ordinance after amended would not apply at all to any business with fewer than 75 employees. in terms of the details regulatory language or the language of a rule that is issued, those are kind of always issued after an ordinance takes effect and to give additional clarity for the implementing agency for the specific details and the law that may not be

appropriate by code. and with that said, we have the specific amendment language and i'm happy to share that with you and talk through it. >> great. so i'm going to ask my second question with respect to the amendment part of the presentation and you mentioned that severance agreements would be exempt. how is severance agreement being defined? for instance, i know many employers, myself included, when we had to lay folks off, i was very concerned about my employees having money for groceries and short-term supplies. that period around march 20t 20th was very intense, as i'm sure you recall. i know many employers, let's

leave myself out of this, many employers informally did thing for their employees and some continued health insurance, some did cash dispersals and many did a number of different things. with respect to a severance agreement, how are you defining that? are you expecting a document that is signed by both parties or do some of these excessivseverance payments thate provided in excess of the employment agreement, would those also be severance agreements? >> it would probably be the narrower definition of severance agreements as it goes to the broader one as you just talked through it. with that said, this is to be heard at committee next thursday and we have between now and then to finalize any amendment language and, of course, it

would be heard at committee. and so, i'm happy to talk with you on the specific definition that we would include there. >> and just checking in, is there more to your presentation or should we go into general questions? i noticed a couple of commissioners have asked questions, not specifically about your amendment. and i wanted to see where we're at in terms of your presentation. >> i'm happy to take general questions. >> wonderful. commissioner ukudio. >> edward, thank you again an. i understand that both employers and employees are are undergoing a crisis right know and helping as many people as we can to navigate this and what we decide to do is going to be reflected

back upon us in the future. this moment is important. i wanted to read a piece of public comment to you that we got because the seven of us have our own small businesses, but, of course, we represent of 100,000 individuals sole proprietors and the largest in the city and we received a lot of public comments about this and edward, this comes from a small business owner and i won't say who, but one that is beloved in this city saying if supervisor mar could guarantee my businesses income for 90 days, i can guarantee you his employment. if he can guarantee my expenses won't go up during that period, that the minimum wage won't increase from july 1st and it won't be more expensive upon renewal and sales in december, the only month we turned a profit would be the same as last year or better, that social distancing and curbside pick-up and regulating how many customers are allowed in my

store at once won't lower my sales, if the city can abundante that, we can guarantee employment. that gets to the point i want to make. even with all of the cut-outs and the amendments and cutting out this industry and that industry making it 75%, the government should not be right now in this particular moment trying to regulat regulate, whoe employ and at the same time, they are for good reasons deeply regulating however aspect of our business is being run in a way that is driving many of our small business owners to the brink, if not passed the point of closure. this is not a time, in my opinion, and in the partly opina lot of small businesser businesw people employ folks in the middle of this. and i wanted to read to you from

the small business owners that we represent and we care a lot about. >> thank you for sharing that. we've heard a lot of stories from small business owners that are truly heart breaking and what businesses are going through right now. from our perspective -- pir (inaudible). >> our office is actively working on supports for small businesses. we want to make it easier for small businesses adapt. and i think we've also heard so many heartbreaking stories from workers. we met with one woman who was

undocumented and worked at a small business for 20 years. that closed and had been able to reopen for curbside pick-up and rather than hire back somebody who worked there for 20 years, they brought back new workers because they could pay them less. we everyone everyone is in a critical position here and it was a difficult decision for us to make. there are a lot of people in difficult circumstances right now is i think th and i think te is to ball the needs and ensure the work going forward represents that balance and represents a thoughtful targeted intervention to help the people who need it most but not to sort of step on the toes of the people who don't need their toes

stepped on. we need a hand-up right now, too, and, specifically small business owners. thank you for sharing that. >> so edward, i have a bunch of questions for you, but just a general point of information. do you happen to know -- you said all of small businesses exempt, but then you said 75 employees or less. and i think california and the city of san francisco define small business as 100 employees or less. and were you, perhaps, just misspeaking or generally characterizing or how would you define small business? >> so the way we define it through the employer definition and the amended version of this ordinance would be any employer with 75 -- or fewer than 75

employees would be exempt. >> just to interrupt, would an employer with 80 employees be considered a small business? not for purposes of this legislation, but is that a small business? >> there are various test defins under different ordinances. they don't define small business and i'm aware of one definition for small business and that's in california state law saying 100 employees or less. but if you could follow up and let me know later if there's -- if it's true there are different definitions of small business, that seems relevant to our commission's work. and i will say that for our purposes, we have to represent all businesses with 100

employees or less. and so, for the purpose of your legislation, which still leaves employers with 76 to 100 employees, your legislation does not of course conclude them so it's not accurate to say that all small businesses with respect to all work is exempt. so i just want to clarify that. >> yes, a clarification. probably i misspoke, it's not the small business that's defined but the employer in different regulations or different ordinances using different definitions employer and many of which are based on different sort of policy intentions to exempt the needs of smaller businesses. and so i apologize for misspeaking. >> that's totally fine. there's a lot going on here. and hopefully, it's

understandable we're about that and has an impact for the folks charged with representing. a couple of questions and one, you mentioned roughly 100,000 employed. how many of that 100,000 will this legislation help? how many do you think but for this legislation would be disadvantaged? >> we don't have specific data on that. >> ok. >> i think there's a lack of data on specific aspects. >> that's fine, that's fine. i have a bunch of questions, so i would -- i'll be brief and hopefully, you can be brief, too. and if you need to explain more, just let me know. i may interrupt. i hope i'm not being rude but i'm trying to be respectful of everybody's time. how does this legislation impact workers outside of san francisco? >> it wouldn't.

>> how many businesses do you happy will be impacted by this legislation? >> we don't have -- i don't have an updated number based on the proposed amendment. that has not been made yet. >> any initial numbers based on the original legislation? >> not specifically, because the number has been changing and we've had a two-week delay on getting those numbers. but i have a policy on that. >> what do you estimate is the cost of compliance for business owners to comply with the legislation for employees? >> there's no direct cost tied to this. >> what is your basis for believing there's no cost. >> we're not requiring anyone to hire employees they can't afford to hire. >> you are requiring businesses to contact employees and you did

mention that the section 5a4 and 5a5 had been removed and is there any notice requirement at all for employers whatsoever to any city agency authority? i believe the requirement to p notice on layoffs survived, correct? >> yes. >> that would presumably be document for the issues that are still open regarding how the different aspects to be documented. presumably there's labor in storing the documentation, would you agree? >> very possibly could be yes. >> well, what do you mean possibly could? is there a scenario where there would not be a documentation being required to be stored? >> i mean, for instance, we are proposing using the same employer definition as the act

of providing notices of lay-offs to the city and to the state of california. so to the extent that this is building on top of that, there would be a certain number of additional layoffs that could be covered under the proposed amended version of our ordinance, but it's tied to the definition of employer that is already provided under the act and those employers are required under state law to provide notices of mass layoffs. >> so is it your feeling that there's no additional cost or burden to employers to comply with this legislation? >> i mean, there would be the noticing requirement to the city for certain lay-offs that would not be covered by the act but the lay-off and more than ten workers and san francisco, but don't quite meet the cal 1 act definition and that could be a labor burden on that business

owner. there's the burden of providing notice to the workers of the direct reemployment. >> so what was the financial impact on olse to develop this new program? have you estimated what the cost to the city would be? >> we don't have a cost estimate from the bla yet. with that said -- >> i'm sorry, that's fine. that's all i need to know for now. if the legislation passes, it's anticipated that there will be litigation and response. has your office estimated what the cost of what that legal defense might be? >> we're making amendments, partially for policy concerns, but also that we think will significantly increase the ordinance. >> if i had employees with performance issues like tardiness, behavioral issues, am i obligated to hire them back?

>> if it false short of misconduct as to be defined through an amendment, i'm happy to talk with you about the exact language on, yes, you would. >> i'm sorry. i have more questions, but i'm just noticing commissioner dooley has a question and i'm sorry, i didn't see that until just now. please. >> what you're drawing on saying most employers wouldn't retire their staff because i have seen anecdotally of the opposite of what most businesses do, rehiring people that know their business and don't have to be trained a lot. and so i'm just curious has to

why you're thinking that enough people would be bad actors as to need this legislation? >> just to clarify. i don't think i cited those statistics. >> i'm asking you for them. >> yes, we don't have any localized statistics on that. i think part of what we view as our duty as policy-making body for the board of supervisors is to provide regulation that protect against that action. so we certainly hope that employers choose to bring back their workers regardless of a requirement and we certainly view that as a win-win scenario for the workers who would have certainty of future employment and for the employer who is able to bring back something they have a relationship with and who has been trained.

so that this is behaviour beneficial to both parties, we think that is positive. >> i have a question. you mentioned earlier that you had extensive outreach from the small business community and you had received some support. i don't want you to single out individual business owners, but could you just let us know what business associations have expressed support to this legislation? >> we have not asked for business associations. >> but to your knowledge, none have expressed support? >> i don'no. >> a couple of questions just about the legalities of this that i'm curious. one of the first things that popped up for me is california state labor code defining employment as at-will.

it appears the proposed legislation would supercede employment and how d is that a correct statement or do you have a different understanding? >> i think there's a real veracity of the ordinance that is a question best addressed to the city attorney's office. [ laughter ] >> well, respectfully, you're here to prevent the legislation. this is a pretty big change to how employment is defined for employers and it's coming at a very sensitive time. we don't have the luxury of having the city attorney here simultaneously with you to ask the city attorney. i was hoping that, perhaps, the city attorney had provided your office with guidance and advice on this issue because it seems germane and to the point.

has your office received any guidance or advice with respect to the at-will employment question? >> we've had significant discussion with the city attorney's office on the veracity of the emergency ordinance and it is our belief and our intention that where there is sufficient public interest in providing additional regulations on employment contracts, especially considering that this is an emergency ordinance, leveraging powers of the board of supervisors for the city and county of san francisco, that we are certainly within our legal right to do that and that's a part of the reason why we are amending this ordinance to target specifically the policy intervention and the employers who may be most negatively impacted by it. >> but i guess did the city

attorney give you specific advice regarding at-will employment and that labor code? you give me a general answer and i'm asking a specific question. >> respectfully, we have had quite a few discussions with the city attorney's office on the legal veracity and ramifications this office and the specific discussions on those specific things are attorney/client privilege discussions. and the city attorney has approveapproved as to form. >> any except shi exemption fors that employee writers, musicians, artists? >> independent contractors are not covered by this ordinance. >> i did not say contracts with. i say employee. is there any exemptions that employs musicians, actors or

artists? >> there are not industry-specific exemptions, no. >> i don't want you to violate your privilege, but in your internal conversations did you have any conversations about the possible first amendments in. >> not specifically discussed, no. >> i won't continue that line because i think it's self-evident that somebody who employs a writer or actor or a statement or cause or an emotion would have a first amendment right to choose the manner in which they express that. your legislation seems to supercede that. in your discussions with the city attorney or internally, did you have a consideration of

vehicle protection clause? >> we, we have. >> was there a conclusion reached on that? >> our duties is to provide regulations for the city and county of san francisco and we can offer this impact to san francisco workers and it would be outside of our jurisdiction to do otherwise. >> commissioner gam adam. >> i have a quick question. i know the city has been laying off folks and are they covered by this? >> they would be covered by this, yes. any other questions? seeing none, can we move on to

public comment? we'll open this up to public comment. is there anyone on the line for public comment? >> there are no callers. >> hearing none, public comment is closed. and commissioners, further discussion. >> i just wanted to comment on the typical legislation that has left our small businesses in the city so vulnerable, so anemic, you can't get through this pandemic. not only is this super burdensome on small businesses, but on city agencies that don't have the capacity right now or the budget to deal with this. i mean, to be honest, i don't

want to make any recommendations or amendments. i just know this is not the time. and i love all of your supervisors, i really do. but after all is said is done, half of the restaurants you left go, they will no exist any more. that's a fact. come on, guys, like, no. we don't have time for stuff like this, that's it. >> thank you. commissioner adams, i believe you had a comment. >> yes, i agree with commissioner ortiz. we have other problems right now and william, you said it the best. when this is all said and done, we'll be losing half of our small businesses in the town. half of our restaurants. i had in the last week and a half since this got out, i've had so many small business owners call me saying, you know, what are they regulating us now for and saying if this goes into

effect, they're not even opening up their doors. so you're actually killing small businesses with this ordinance rather than helping them. so i agree, i can't add my amendments. this is just bad and you brought up the healthcare security ordinance and there are so many flaws in that, small businesses have been putting money into that for years and they can't access it now when they need it the most. until we actually see the bad actors, there's no bad actors out there. this is a different time for a different place and just what it will cost the city when the city has no more money left and agencies with other issues to worry about, this is just -- i just think this is bad all around. and that's my two cents. >> ok. i will have a couple of comments to say before we make any motions just for commissioners

to notice. but commissioner dooley. >> i just wanted to add my agreement to what all of the commissioners have said so far. i mean, going back to what commissioner dooley said, the fact there are no statistic and data showing what you're actually proposing to save and who you're proposing to help, i think this is really alarming to me. there is so much data already in terms of how small businesses are been impacted. it feels so out of touch and this is why small businesses are having such a tough time and it also feels -- i don't know, maybe i shouldn't talk about how it feels. but i think to tell us that there are other pieces of

legislation where you're deferring payments and getting rid of line items and fees, that in no way feels like a gift from the city, honestly. as a small business owner, and as somebody representing small businesses, those feel like not even a crumb. the thing that we're really battling against -- i can assure you that everyone sitting on this commission, as well as all of the small business owners i've spoken with, which are probably hundreds at this point, we have been working around the clock to save our businesses and save our communities, quite frankly. and i think, you know, getting rid of a $200 fee and then putting on, maybe, 40, 50 hours of compliance that we have to then dig through and figure out how to navigate and then, perhaps, going into more litigation over justifying an action that at that point you had to make, i think that feels,

again, out of touch is maybe very light, but it's incredibly offensive, you know. i think that's really what i want to say. i cared so much for the city and all of its responsibilities and i thinresidents.through this pae have come together and even creating a threshold of 75 and above, like, whatever threshold, to me, i feel like i've been asked to serve on the economic recovery task force and that's a task forceful of all different sized businesses. to see everybody coming together to save the economy and thinking about ways we can bolster the economy together, i think that is a much better way to look at the situation right now. i just feel -- i am not supportive of any wedges in our

communities and i think it's our time to come together and to continue that thing we started early on in the pandemic. so that and i think that's pretty much it. i thank you for your time. >> thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner zazunis. >> ok. let me lower my volume. can you hear me ok? >> you're perfect. >> so i agree with some comments from my fellow commissioners, but i also want to speak to the fact that i am more supportive of this ordinance now that i'm seeing these amendments and that your office is being receptive to some of the feedback from small businesses. i like that there's a sense that they -- i think we do need to

change our kind of mo on how we make policies in the city because we're doing this preemptive punitive measure seeing nonstop on small businesses, hypothetically fining then for something they didn't do yet. there's countless things on the books that are written like that, as opposed to incentive-based or helping people move into compliance. you didn't make this, you know, transgression yet, but we're going to assume you are. and that mentality needs to end. i'm really looking forward to some initiatives like the public bank which may give us kind of a way out to these types of laws that just rely on extorting people, you know, like we know based on how this economic system works that it is about extorting people and it is about

speculating on labor and, unfortunately, that's how our laws are, too. so that now we're in a situation where economically is depressed, we need to get more creative instead of relying on extorting some other sector of the economy or low, middle-class businesses, whatnot, as a way to fund something. i was the only commissioner who voted in favor of the healthcare security ordinance when it came across our commission a couple of years back, but i agreed with all of our critiques which are in place today. the fact that we have not reassessed that program and the burden that it creates. so i really think that something like this is right to have a sunset date to, and i really encourage that our supervisors

do their due diligence and doing the hard work of going back on the books and assessing the type of punitive laws that we have and really start building towards, as commissioner huey said, something that brings us closer together instead of pinning us against each other. that's where i stand and thank you for presenting to us today. >> commissioner ukudio. >> this is a short comment and i just want to echo that. unless we come off in that conversation as a community that is not trying to do well by our employees, that's not -- i hope that is to the what we're trying to communicate to you, edward, and to the board of supervisors and to anyone that's excited about this piece of legislation. i think in general, there are a lot of well-meaning laws like

commissioner ortiz has mentioned, that have done a lot of -- that have made running small businesses in san francisco very, very difficult. and ultimately, that is the worst thing that we can do for our employees, is create an environment where small businesses can't operate at all because that means no one is employed. and so we're just trying to do our best piece here in the middle of what is such a crisis for our community, to make sure that more laws are not put into place that dil affect them. anyone proposing policies, the policies -- we shouldn't be proposing policies that we think might be really, really tough

and bad for a who've sector of our city with the hope and examination that through the delivertive process it's amended to a place where it's better. that to me is not smart policy-making. because if we had not found this and if the small business community had not latched on to this and said, oh, my gosh, this will be really, really hard for us and spent all of it time and efforts advocating and lobbying, by the way time we should have been spending to pick ourselves out of this mess, it is possible this may not have gotten amend. then we would have had a law on the books that would not have been a great law. my ask is that in the future, moving forward, you're young and we're all in this together and let's have a starting point with laws and policies in the small business community that will do more good than harm and let's not create laws or proposed

policies that we think and we expect will require a lot of amendments to get to a place where it might do more good than harm. and that is my humble and respectful request to you to anyone making laws and policies that affect our community and workers and small businesses. >> commissioner dooley. >> yes, you know, i just think the timing is wrong on this because we're anticipating bad behaviour and putting this in place and i think that i know all of our communities, we're just struggling to get these places to a point where they can be open in my manner. and i just feel like it's just not the right time to pile any additional legislation on our small businesses. now, if after this moves on and we find out that a million small businesses are dumping their

long-term employees and then we might want to come and address this again, but to do it in anticipation is just adding more more work and struggles for our small businesses that right now cannot afford anything more on their plates than what they're already dealing with. >> thank you. >> edward, i'll offer some closing comments here. first of all, i think you probably knew coming into this that there would be some pretty tough questions. certainly i asked a few myself and i would like to thank you for taking the time to come in and represent the legislation that your office is proposed. you know, something that i think can sometimes get lost in these engines changes and i want to convey is i feel and i know many of my fellow commissioners feel

that we want to help po policy makers make good policy and we want to support you and lift you up. we want you to be your best and we want to help make this city better. everybody on this commission is a volunteer and most of us are struggling mightily right now. as you know, when you and i spoke on the phone and i conveyed some of the perm persol challenges i'm facing in the wake of covid and trying to take care of our staff. and so, this is a very difficult and challenging time for the small business community, probably the most difficult in anyone's living memory. and i think it's really critical in the moment when the community employ roughly half of all workers as a community. so many business owners are

struggling and they're looking at business bankruptcy. they're looking at personal bankruptcy and they're looking at contemplating suicide. it is deeply challenging for so many of us. and i think the way that this particular legislation was promulgated, i kne know i reachd out to your office and sent an email and asked for somebody to get back to me and nobody did. eventually, i was able to track down your number and speak to you. but i didn't feel like we had an opportunity to be a partner in this legislation prior to it being drafted. and i would encourage your office and i would encourage all to use this as a resource. being here fowe're here for a r. the voters put us in the charter for a reason, to help you do

your best. we want the city to work great for workers and business owners and we want it to work great for everybody in the city. we are facing a complete loss of our business and a complete loss of our liv life savings and our homes and this commission, at our last meeting drafted 42 point memo to the economic task force. over the past week and a half, two weeks, we've had to devote a lot of time to communicating with and about this legislation and hearing from the community who is very upset, generally

speaking, about some of the requirements which have since been removed and some have been addressed by amendment. but others still remain. in 2019, my business employed 82 people and so, not any more. and not currently at the moment, but i can imagine a small business like mine, which is absolutely a small business, now looking at other requirement, another burden. and i think that the timing is wrong to be adding burden to business owners. if there's a harm that you want to address, then i think the proper route to address that is by not putting the onus on business owners to address the issue and if you are going to put the onus on business owners, then i think you have the duty to able to articulate how many

people are being helped and what is the cost. we have to be able to balance cost is benefit and what i have heard from you is, we don't know how many people are negatively impacted by this. you have presented one an antidl report but we haven't received any evidence that this is a city-wide problem that all business owners in orbe order to address the city-wide problem. there's another question here, which is, were need to get back on our feet is concentrate getting back on our feet. every time we start bickering about side issues, this is something, in my opinion, that should have been discussed as a

community, as partners behind the scenes and not be put through this time-consuming effort, all of these folks putting all of this energy and time into it. it's not t the best way to advae policy. it's inefficient. and in this crisis, we can't afford to have inefficiency. we have to work together and we have to be a team and we to communicate. as politely as i can, i would like to request that in the future when you're drafting legislation that could or may potentially impact small business, which we defined as 100 employees or less, that we be included that a conversation early in the process. you have my cell phone number and any supervisor that wants my cell phone number be, i', i'm ho

help you and want you to succeed. i had to lay off a ton of people. i didn't have a championships. choice. our revenue dropped by 95% and i cried for days over having to lay off my staff. it was incredibly painful and remains incredibly painful. every aspect of this is incredibly painful. and it is insulting to not be included. and we deserve better than that and i encourage your office to do better in the future. that concludes my remarks. commissioners, do we have a motion? >> i motion we do not approve this ordinance. >> i second it. >> the motion by commissioner

adams to not approve as membership and seconded by commissioner huey. >> i want to make sure that we have the director. i want that we're very clear because edward did present the amendment, so can you just please make sure we're accurately identifying, is it we're not approving as written or not approving even with the proposed amendment? i just want to make sure. >> i will go ahead and change my motion to not approve this ordinance as written and with amendments. >> do we have a second? >> and i second. were. >> dominica. >> i'm trying to think about how to frame that motion because we

haven't actually done that in the past because we don't have the amendment drafted. so you can't really take a motion on something that doesn't exist. >> could we say the amendment as presented today by representatives from supervisor mar? >> you're taking a motion on a presentation and not the actual piece of legislation. so i think that the conversation can be summarized in the memo to the clerk, but the motion as it was first established by commissioner adams. >> so commissioners, the per -- what dominica, you have to take the motion and then the commission can provide clarifying comments. comments, u want to ensure are in the final

letter to the board of supervisors as it relates to the amendment. >> ok to proceed our do you need further clarification? >> i'm fine to proceed. >> first motion by commissioner adams. >> rolrole call, please. pai(role call). >> motion passes 6-1. >> next item. >> item 3, continue discussion on small business recovery.

>> before we continue, edward, thank you for taking your time to come and present and we do appreciate the office presenting the legislation. so thank you. this is or work and this is what we have to do. but we do appreciate your time. >> thank you for the opportuni opportunity. >> item 3, continued on rebuilding. >> so at the last hearing or meeting -- are they called meetings or hearings? i'm never clear on that. i believe -- was it the last hearing we sent the memo to the

economic recovery task force? >> i believe it was two meetings ago. >> no, it was the may 11t may 11th meeting that the commission formalized it's recommendation and i'm just confirm that. for your information, commissioners, i am able -- yes, we sent the memo to the economic recovery task force on ma may 13th and i am able to share the screen 1 to bring up the list of recommendations in case you would need to refer to them. >> ok, great. i have that in front of me, but i did want to provide a couple of observations on the impact of

that memo with the task force and some of the ultimate policy changes that it had. and so i'm just making sure i got that. here we go. so first of all, our memo was well received by the task force. the cochair thanked us for the information, chair fong specifically said the land use section was particularly helpful and many of the items that come up in subsequent conversations, i have attended meetings with cdma, spur and the memo has been referred to in those environments, as well. and i know that it leads --

there is pending legislation that it has had an impact on and this morning, i spoke with the mayor's office and i want to convey that possibly one of the biggest changes to the city shared spaces which is opening up more space for the city, that our voice was an important one in helping to amplify that concept in getting it to the level that it has some support in the mayor's office and that's a big, huge win. that is a very big and dramatic change in how the city has done business in the past and it is something that i think the community has largely had broad consensus and support for. so i'm pleased by that. but there's still a lot of work to do and, frankly, to have more

work done today at this meeting that didn't happen. so with respect to the task force, we've had two group meetings with the entire group and one small group meeting and my small group includes cd may and ben blineman and that was nice to see familiar faces. the task force, you know, i don't think is yet at a point where it's making specific policy requests or proposals, but i think the work is happening behind the scenes and i have a quip, that i think the most important work will happen outside of the task fortune is the most important contributions will be made by people who aren't on it at all.

i view it as an information-sharing exchange. there are other task force members and i want t wanted to e william and cynthia to offer any insight into the task force work for the commission's benefit. if you so choose. receiv[ laughter ] >> william, do you want to go first? i guess i'm un-muted and just volunteered myself. thank you for giving us the opportunity to share. i've been working really hard on a couple of things in regard to

the task force. one that has been the most eye-opening for me has been trying to get dental offices, specifically, and other healthcare kind of private practises reopened. and i i'vi realize that throughs work -- i don't know, should i provide a little overview of what happened in terms of what's been happen. >> yes, anything you think the commissioners would benefit from learning about. >> i think dental offices were slated in the same category as personal services and that would be kind of, you know, the sector that would include probably nail salons, hair salons and personal services. the problem with that is that probably is not going to be reopening until a later phase in

the reopening kind of timeline. whereas, dental offices and different types of healthcare offices were not given the ok by the city and county to reopen for routine care and that type of deferral of treatment is oftentimes very impassable to the public health, when people are not able to get routine care. and in dentistry, self, we were in thing thainnoticing that thie starting out as maybe small fillings, after not receiving care, they were turning into root canals. and so for patients and for people, that's a huge deal when you're looking at the difference between a filling, a root canal or loss of tooth, like an

extraction is so that type of thing, since we were deferring treatment and deferring care, we were starting to see more and more of that. and dental offices had come and talked to me about when are we going to be reopening. it was kind of hard to figure out exactly what was happening. who do i talk to and where are the resources? so one is that having a more transparent path for industries that feel like they need clarity, especially when there are associations there. there is state guidance for dentists and the california dental association had given directives for all california dental offices, i think, may 7th. and we didn't hear anything until we started pushing for a response a week later. in that week, there's a big gap between the state guidance and what happens in our local municipality.

and i think having a more proactive approach would be helpful in all of this. so what happened was, we inquire about this and figured out what was happening and we realized, oh, gosh, you don't realize that it's important for patients to get care right now versus, like, other types of services that may be aren't as impactful to someone's overall health. and so once that was remedied, the department of public health issued a directive but it was not issued with the guidance from the dental association or the san francisco dental society. so from california and the local level, there was no discussion. and then after the health directive came out, there were all sorts of things that kind of changed and one of the changes was that they required testing, covid testing for all air slide

procedures. there was no discussion about that in terms of why they needed this because at this particular juncture, we don't have testing capabilities within offices to be able to ensure patients, nor dental practise safety. and so it was just a lot of, like, what do we do and implement this? and i think when we have this type of issue, it really creates a situation where people don't know how to become compliant. they want to, but you don't know why you're recommending a certain test that there were no recommendations for that test, also. there were no age guidelines for that test. so you could be looking at a 4-year-old patient who would be also be required under the directive to get testing. and so there's still a lot of kind of, i don't know -- not

misunderstanding but lack of guidance in terms of how to implement this. and i feel like if going forward, the department of public health could have a more proactive approach and reach out to local associations, as well as -- and then checking this with people and saying, ok, these are the things that we're planning on doing. because this directive for the dentists is the most restrictive we've even in the whole nation. we're the only county in the whole country that requires this for dentists which would kill our dental practise. why would you go to a dentist in san francisco and you could go to one in san m matteo where thy don't have this. there needs to be more transparent understanding of what the goals are, what types of goals, department of public health really wants to get in terms of testing.

and, like, getting more input from people who are knowledgeable in our community. i think many stakeholders, we actually carry a lot of november knowledge where you could ask any of us to glean from. for the recovery task force, i've been pushing for more proactive involvement of stakeholders and more transparency in how they phase things out. i think dates are important for the reopening process as they put forth more health directives and people need to understand milestones and how long things are going to be taking place. >> thank you. >> sure. >> william? >> for me, it's definitely making sure that throughout the process, that this is an equitable lense to everything

going on, especially in the latino community. small businesses that are latino or monolithic, residency in question, they have a greater impact because they don't have other access to resources than, say, some of the other small businesses and then beyond that is also a lot of the documenting a population that work this our service industry that are back in the house and they, too, don't have the resources to go on unemployment and it's just a myriad of things. so we're trying to focus on making sure that this crisis doesn't further the je gentrification in our city. so focusing into a cultural and equitable lense, that's the primary we're working on or i'm proposing to work on. >> any other commissioner

comment on the update? commissioner adams. >> the three of you have done an excellent job on that economic task force. i've been hearing a lot of feedback from that and the three of us, you really need to be commended and you really are representing small businesses and i just think you're doing a fantastic job. it a battle out there and i wane best. one thing we do need is more guidance when we start to open up, because i've heard from a few people that the city says one day we'll open up on monday and, you know, with the pop-ups, it actually took some people that i though, some businesses more than a few days. and so i really appreciated that comment, but the three of you, in my opinion, and manny, and kathleen, you guys have been rock stars throughout this whole

thing. i mean, rock stars. and manny is -- i don't want to say a podthe cast, but your questions and answers, this has been great. and i'm so proud of all of my fellow commissioners. we've all stepped up during this thing and it's not that easy. it hasn't been easy on me or anybody else. i mean, i'm worn out at the end of each day. and so, yo hats off to you guys. you've done a fantastic job, just fantastic. >> thank you, commissioner adams. i just want to echo the support for the entire team and it an honor to serve with all of you and the more i get to know some of you, the more impressed i am -- well, i mean, that's true for all of you, but some i know

less than others, just you're newer to the commission. i think the commission has probably stepped up and we have an incredible team and it is a privilege and an honor to serve with all of us. commissioner ukudio. >> thank you, is thank you so much, commissione for representl on the economic recovery task force. you represent a broad spanie swf the city and my question is about the 42 point proposals we spent so much time and energy coming up with. i think you'll remember two weeks ago, i felt lining a little bit of a stick in the mud saying if these will be anything more than a piece of paper, we need to not just send it places,

but actually do our own due diligence and our own work to see what was feasible and concurrently bring the people and the enforcement agencies to us, to talk through how we might get these done. >> we are the small business commission and we represent the small businesses and we have an amazing office of small business and last time on the node to movneed tomove quickly and deli. i wanted to understand what happened between last time and this time, what progress was made on these set of proposals other than sending it to people and getting responses saying thank you so much for coming up with it. and where are we with the office of the thresher and op oewd to e

to our commission to talk about feasibility on making these things happen. >> thank you, commissioner. let me address the easier part of this, which is i do know our memo ha a had an impact as i mentioned earlier. the mayor's office told me directly. but with that being said, i completely support where you're coming from. we have to do better. where we're at right now is not satisfactory and, honestly, i thought that -- i made a request per your suggestion that we bring in a couple of folks for this meeting so they could present as to the feasibility of some of the ideas, some of the names that were discussed, ted

eagan from the controller and jorge sineros. i did not get any followup. director, could you help us to understand -- did we get an invitation out to them and what was the -- why are we not speaking to anybody today. >> the department heads that i have determined that are relevant to the memo have received the memo, but was not able to have a discussion, enough with them in regard to the mel mo memo to schedule the.

many of the department heads need more than a week's time to be able to get into their schedule. so i appreciate your disappointment and your urgency. i think, also, a challenge for both dominica and i, there's a lot of conceding effort that is being -- not target th targetedt directed at us. and for us to be wor working ond tracking. it is to dominica is i to set up a process, one, to be tracking what efforts are being done, such as the shared spaces' concept, that those are ideas that generate -- may not necessarily be specifically listed but those concepts are initiated from the type of

action that you have asked the city to take in regard to that memo. so for today, what i would like is -- i node to interject. you mentioned you determined the department heads that were responsible. which department heads are these? >> the tax and treasurer's office, the economic and workforce development and could be the assessors' office in some cases, the department of planning. not just planning bug as we get into the concept of shared spaces, that public work's is

involved. and so those are the key ones to start off with. >> did we get an invitation out to them? >> no, we did not. >> let's try to correct that for the next meeting. >> just to close my point, if i'm out on a limb, if this isn't what we want to do, i want to make sure that if i'm pushing for something, i want to make sure this is what the commission wants and what the office of small business thinks is the best usage of this body's time. i want to make sure if i'm the only one that wants to push for this, i don't want to be the only one. if this is where we want to move, let move in this direction. but i want to confirm that people want to take time to do

this. >> i support you. >> i unequivocally support you, commissioner ukutio and i feel strongly that we need to follow umand that one of the ways to build consensus is to make sure that our ideas as presented are feasible and we make forward process and it's urgen urgent be of the crisis and terro directom sorry to put you on the spot. that wasn't my intention. we have to make forward progress and have to walk and chew gum at the same tomb. time. if there are any commission that's feel this is not a good use of our time, to hear from these department heads about that memo, please, you know, now would be a good time to let us

know because i agree with commissioner that we should have some consensus how to move forward, but speaking as the president, i think that it is a wise use of our time to make sure that we follow up on this. >> and commissioners, i do have a question for you, because will work to schedule them as soon as we can -- part of our challenge is that we don't have set meeting times, so we're fo goino need to work on that. and in my communication, i need to also understand, are you going to need to -- in my communication to them, i can community katcommunitycommunitcg

about and will you need the authority and the licensing permitting in each of the jurisdictions and how do they relate and all of that takes time to prepare, as well. what i would like today is to look at the memo, to look at the list and for you to prioritize and we know evacuee talked abo t the planning department and tax is treasurer's office and if we're talking about data, do we want to bring in the tax and treasurer, chief economist and oewd at the same time to have the conversation? >> understood. we'll narrow the scope. i don't want to bur burden the office with creating an expansive list for osb to do and i think we can probably manage asking questions that are jer ningermane to our interests and

most are top level. but commissioner dooley has been patiently waiting and has asked to speak. let's make the room for commissioner dooley. >> i wanted to chime in that we have been working at north beach for six weeks on the shared spaces project and we've been working with supervisor peskin's office and i will have to say that it's slow-going. there's a lot of discussion in your neighborhood of who wants the shared spaces, who doesn't and it's pretty complex and it seems to change everyday. right now, we have settled on what we'll do forward, which is starting small and just with closing the parking spaces and

see how that goes and we may expandeexpand on allowing streeo close. we have our sign saying no parking. we have barriers up and i just want to urge all of the neighborhood associations that might be listening to this that you should just go ahead, work with your supervisor, one-on-one, and get this ready to go so when we are allowed to have things on the parking spaces or the streets, we're ready to jump because otherwise, you're looking at four to six weeks before you'll actually be able to get everything in place. >> commissioner dooley, i could not agree more. in my conversations with cd may and at the meeting i attended and other merchants and business owners, what i'm learning is

that in order for shared spaces to be successfully executed, the needs vary from block to block and that we're not going to have a one-size-fits-all solution. i know there are people in the city at large that are very upset about the progress that would like to snap their fingers and make it all happen overnight, but there's a lot of people that are impacted and affected bi by the changes. we have to move quickly, but there has to be a way to have input about what the community looks like. i was talking to a west portal merchant and, obviously, you can't shut down the street on west portal because muni runs through it and that particular community is very hilly and

fairly spaced out and many of the people that shop there are fairly distant so there needs to be a provision for parking. as you know, it's challenging. so thank you for that comment. i agree whole-heartedly and we have to be thoughtful in what we support and make sure there's good feedback for everyone. commissioner doole earthquakes. ey. >> i just wanted to share that i don't know, what it be helpful to go through this -- like, for me, i guess, could you use my help to go through this and kind of, like, put status updates and who need t need to talk to for h one. i shared with supervisor fewer, she had a great meeting for all of the merchant's associations and i got a little bit of a time to share that we did put

together this memo. she included it into everybody in d1 and highlighted that we had this. and so, i mean, i kind of think, would it be helpful to carve out serve things to able to have those conversations one-on-one with the supervisors? because i can't imagine she would able to, like, go through all 42 items and they don't all fall under her purview kind of thing. but i would be happy to do that in the districtsvs i have relationships with. i know the recovery task force are work on certain things, like the city should purchase ppe in bulk and i've had conversations where i know just because of that conversation, that certain things are being worked on. would it be helpful for me to --

and for all of us to able to collectively look at this document and see where there has been movement from our knowledge and see where we can kind of, like, go further with those things? because i do think -- i can see it's hard to digest all 42 points for each person. >> yeah, so to that point, the short answer is yes. the long answer is that i think director dikendrizie wanted to establish, from your comments, she wanted to establish some sort of triage on how to move forward. is that right? >> or set a prioritization of what you want to begin to work on or get reports back on. so as for an example, under general support and if i need to bring up the document, let me know, but booklet 3 says create

a one-stop shop specifically for small business support and representatives for all agencies planning dpw fire may process permits, fees and applications. there should be a fast lane. so the city is developing a one-stop permit center. pre-pandemic, it was slated to open in the fall of this year and i think this have been minor delays but the person, of course, who is staffed with getting the permit center open is melissa whitehouse, who is ahead of the recovery task force. so that question, i mean, so that, it does involve me reaching out to both melissa whitwhitehouse to see who can present and what's the timeline and will that be extended out to a degree that the commission thinks something else needs to

be in place prior to the opening of the one-stop center and then, also, have the discussion with each of those agencies that have been identified as to, are there internal discussions amongst agencies about what they're doing for any small business needs, to sort of expedite those permits and processes. so that's why i'm saying, it would be helpful for me to begin to get the list of priorities of what you want to have the entities present to you, in terms of what the priorities of these items? >> first, in terms of scheduled meetings, i would propose we get back on our normal, regular schedule for meetings. the next one, i think, would be june 8th.

and so, you had mentioned earlier, having some uncertainty when the next meeting was, was the complicated factor. and my recommendation is, we get back to that second and fourth monday. my amendment to that would be able thwhile the shelter-in-inin place, we hold that at 1:00 p.m. announcement that order is not longer in effect. sorry. one the shelter-in-place order is no longer in effect and we can go back to meeting in person, we can revert to 5:30, unless we don't have a quorum, in which case we'll have to

engineer something so that it works and we have a quorum. but we do kne knee need to estad it will help you and me in terms of planning. does that sound right to you, reggie that? >> yes. regina? >> yes in. >> in terms of establishing priorities here, what i think -- how would you propose that we proceed in a way that's helpful to you and how can the commission help facilitate your understanding of what the commission's priorities are? how would you like to proceed at this moment? >> i would like to hear -- because i've heard outside of the meeting, priorities of different commissioners. and what will be helpful for me

is for the commission today, take a look at this list and it doesn't need to be done by vote but through discussion, communicate to me what areas you want to start addressing first. >> i open it up to any commissioner that wants to comment. >> and if i need to bring the document up on the shared screen just for a quick review, i'm happy to do that, but i sent it to you earlier today. >> you have particular insights into what is most feasible and least feasible, understanding all of dynamics of city hall and i don't know that i have, like,

a preference level of one of these qualities over the other, but i think for me, it's what is the best use of our time and gunpowder to fight for and so i'm comfortable let you make the decision about of these 42 things, what are the 23 that have the most likelihood to being done if we're coordinated and organized enough and which enforcement agencies touch that issue and inviting each agency head to come so that we can talk about whether or not that's feasible. that would be something i would be comfortable with. because that feasibility question is the most important for me. >> you know, manny, i agree and disagree, in part. i agree that we need to give

staff some agency but i think we're -- but give them a starting point. there's 42 points here and i think the director is asking for some guidance. and so what i think is helpful here is if there is something on these 42 points that you're, like, man, the people i talk to, this is something i hear a lot about and this would be really helpful, this stands out to me, let not worry about plausibility just let but what are the concerns of the community that we're representing. and the other thing i would add to that is, i know all of us are regularly talking with everybody out in the community and these

things will change over time, right? and so, you know, i wouldn't foreclose the commission's ability to communicate, what the community is expressing and just turn that over to staff who doesn't have the same influence as we do. and so, commissioner adams just noticed that he has to jump to another work meeting and i'll turn it over to you for a minute or two. if there's anything that jumps out to you, commissioner adams, as high priority. >> i'm hearing a lot from people in the community.

a lot of this has to do with planning issues and having to do with having stuff done when we open and to be successful. >> so mostly in the land-use category, then? >> yes, and a lot of restaurateurs, that. we're all hearing about it from all of the restaurant associations. >> great. i wanted to make sure we got your input. if you have any further input, communicate to the director. >> certainly. >> so that regina can be advised. and is there any other commissioners. >> commissioner dooley, i think. >> go ahead. isyou're muted. >> the most important part of the 42 items is just strictly about helping small businesses

open. >> i'm sorry. i didn't understand you. i think your finger was over the microphone. >> to me, the most important part is the reopening and helping the small business corridors. >> and if i could just response to your response to my response. i would say that the order of priority would be putting money into small business owner's pocket, so the funding sources would have an immediate effect to help small businesses and i think the retrofit should be easy win and so, that's something that i think should definitely be pushed. and i don't think we should -- i think the hgso reshaping would be a high priority because it's, again, something to put money

into pockets of small business owners or stopping money from being taken out. and the land use and fee mitigation. i think the communications, the general support and the data pieces, those are all helpful, but i get the sense, at least the reopening with the communications in general support, a lot of that -- it's stuff that's already happening or stuff, in my mind, not putting stuff in small business owner's pockets or the neglect t flexibility to do what they need to do to survive. i would focus on those things first. and then data is so important and it's important to do our work. if i had to prioritize this, the data would probably come toward the end after putting money in small business owner's pocket and maintaining their business to stay open and preventing things like retrofits and hgso

for making it harder for small businesses over the next six to nine months. >> any other commissioner that wish -- i don't want to talk over anybody. in my conversations with the community about the land use stuff, getting flexibility to do whatever they need to do to survive, i think the fee mitigation issue is important, but i think to commissioner huey earlier, this is not a big help. so in terms of priority -- and, you know, supervisor mar's

office has indicated they're working on stuff on fee mitigation and i don't know -- i think we should apply our efforts where it's actually going to make a material difference and not only things that are already slotted to happen. i think -- i know i said forget about plausibility but i'm overlay plausibility. of course, we would all love more money from the city. i have some question marks about the plausibility of getting any meaningful amount of money out of the city. so i have questions about whether that is sna something to

prioritize and as much as i would like to have it, i'm not sure that is on my short list i i think the one-stop shop would be tremendously helpful to businesses. acso is something that drives all business owners birzark and it goes to the general fund. we need to measure we're at and where we're going. and so i'm actually fairly agnostic on that. it talks about 463 properties and i can picture that this

would be really big and important and critical for those people affected by it, but it doesn't -- outside of the commission, it's not something anybody tries to grab my attention about. it's possible i could have a blind spot there. i thought it was interesting that you highlighted that. and you know, so ok. (inaudible). >> you were surprised about this and i didn't hear you. >> well, i'm surprised that you highlighted it. it's not something i hear about outside of the commission. it's a big concern by the people affected by it. but for the community as a whole. but i'm not opposed to prioritizing things that have a big impact on a small number of people. it's just how you chart out that

difference between degree of need versus spread of impact, the number of people impacted. and so, i'm open on that one, i guess i would say. and there is one thing not on this list, which should probably be on oureist. (eour internal communications wh the community would be improved upon and if they were ie improvd upon, we might be able to answer these questions authoritatively and quickly. and that's just an internal infrastructure thing that we have to focus on.

and so, plugging that all together, here is what i have, regina, as a short-order list. this is not in or. order. this is items there is a consensus about. one is the one-stop shop and two is reopening support and three is reshaping hcs -- sorry, soft story, four is land use, five is acso and six is data collection. and among that list, i wouldn't prioritize soft story. i would put it toward the bottom. and acso is complex with

multiple parties involved and not something we'll be able to line up by the next meeting. i would put that in the longer-term projects because i think we have to have some communications with the labor community and it would be nice, i think, to get pat mulligan in to talk about how hcso is implemented and that's something that 1 i think were would be helpful to the commission.

does ago agree that should be the next-stop shop? >> why am i always in this corner down here, huh? >> for me, you're on the top in the middle, just so you know. [ laughter ]

>> i think that helping the business corridors reopen because they need a lot of help in terms of the technicalities is we need to really, you know, make it clear right away when these streets reopen o. people don't know what the heck is going on. >> i agree.

>> we need the business orders for reopening. >> let's make this number two. >> when we're talking about the reopening support, this is where it gets a little -- this is where i need the specificity because the one-shop-stop want overlay with that and is it really information -- is it something that needs to be directed to dph and the city attorney and how information, the timing of it and is it new ideas and how do those new ideas, you know, come into fruition? so some of that could be the one-stop shop.

if wear going to have a productive meeting, i do need a bit more specificity in terms of what you want to -- you intend to address with those departments so that i can make sure that they're prepared. >> yeah, so i think what might be helpful here and what commissioner tal dooley clarifi, we need to think about how to get the economy restarted and what is thesequence for doing so? i love the idea of a one-stop shop but as soon as she made her comments, i realized that's probably not what is needed in this moment but getting people restarted. i think we should probably tailor our input from agencies

to correspond with the output to the communities in the order that's most helpful to the communities. and so i think that the two things we should probably zoom in on is helping businesses reopen and helping businesses when necessary pivot to a different use. >> can i interrupt you. i think from a logistical standpoint, so many of these things, whether we prioritize in one category or another, touch multiple enforcement agencies so if it is up to me, i would say, we invite particular individuals that represent these enforcement agencies and we send them our proposals and say, this is what we voted on is we won't talk about all of these things but we wanted to bring you in to see what from our list you're responsible for and how do we help with them? we let them come to us and tell

us what they can do and can't do versus trying to parse it out by solution, because if we're doing it by solution, i mean, some of these solutions are all of the enforcement agencies and, obviously, we don't want to bring in dpw and say it's not my problem, it's planning. but we bring in dpw. we provide the proposals we sent out and we send that to them as prep documents, understanding that all of this is not possible, can you come to the small business profession and talk about how to man make movements. >> that makes things easier and so, let me repeat back to you what you just said and turn it into, maybe, like a process staff can follow, and tell me if this matches up with what you said. so for each of proposals, there's going to be an agency or agencies that would be in charge of implementation and so for

eachch these proposals, we identify those agency or agencies and then, we invite those agencies and we then create a new list for each agency and agencies with just the proposals on this list that affect them poin and we ask theo review it and come to the commission and simply share their thoughts about these proposals. >> that's it. that's it. and to answer your question, director, i don't think we should -- i think it's an unfair burden to put on you to then try to press every commissioner with all of the inner workings of every department. it should come out wit the question heads and if there's something we don't know, we'll ask them and to ease this on you and feel free to disagree, but i abs therunderstand there are soy things going on we are not

talking about right now. i want to make sure the expectations are reasonable that we are not asking you to make sure every commissioner understands exactly how each department works completely with the department head. >> generally, i don't even think that's necessary. i don't need to know how everything works to know that i need one little thing and if they can explain why one little thing works or doesn't work, i'm good. i don't need to have an ensigh e of how it puts together. that's the role of the department head to understand. does that work for all of the of the commissioners? >> yes. >> any other commissioners on the call? commissioner adams left and

azunis left. and who am i missing? artiz, did he have to leave, as well? >> he's still here. >> william, does that process work for you? >> yeah, that's good. >> who am i missing? that's everybody. >> can i just mention that we still, for the next meeting, we knee tneed to be working on somg that is guidelines for reopening that can se sent to the business groups in these areas? it's very confusing what the reopening is going to be and it does involve many different departments. is wno one understands what's gg on. mine, the reasothe reason we goe

is because i spent the last six weeks on the phone with supervisor peskin's office. not everyone has that kind of access. i would like it to get to the point where we could have a fly they'rflyer to be given to busis about saying how to prepare for reopening. because they just -- it's so scattered right now and no one knows what to do. so i think that's important to get some document out there that people could understand. >> are you imagining that the commission would prepare this document or that we would direct oewd to direct this document? i'm trying to figure that out in. >> whoever is willing to do that. it hasn't happened yet. we have to give small businesses some way to find it and maybe

that could be on our website. >> that sounds like oewd. director, i saw you nodding your head and what are your thoughts here? >> and i think this is part of dealing with the recovery and rebuilding from a big crisis like this, is that while we're trying to provide businesses with the opportunity, as soon as dph has said that we can take these next steps, you know, we're not necessarily fully prepared with the full package, so to speak. and so i'm nodding my head and reluck at that poinandreluctante commission take the steps of the guidelines because that results on us, our office, and our office has been making those requests to oewd.

so we'll forward in that continued urgency to oewd. i know they feel very much the same way, as well, but they have the capacity to be able to develop and create the marketing materials to get out to the businesses. >> ok, so we'll continue to grind on them. what do you think about the idea of just simply determining for each of the 42 proposals, which agency is affected and then inviting the agencies to come in and speak as their schedule permits and as we can coordinate with their office as expeditiously as possible? does that work for you, regina? >> yes, it does work. it does work, and many of the things are -- many of the

different sections, certain departments can speak to most of those categories. and so, yes, i will take that direction and just begin to work with each agency on scheduling them. >> can i ask that we draft a document that identifies which agencies are associated with which requests and let the group that worked on drafting this memo just review that prior to making the invitations? >> yes. >> just to make sure that we're not leaving anybody out and we're all on the same page. >> degree. yes. and with that group, i would like to have a further discussion around the hcso

because there's understanding what's the goal and -- i mean, what do you want to first get at and look at? >> talk about hcso and come up with a plan of attack and let's try to do that.

>> this is not -- this doesn't seem to be thatbl complicated. i feel by the time we figure that out didn't send out the notices, it's too late to get them to come to the next meeting. >> i agree, it would be better to have another meeting about in, but i think in in order for

us to do this expeditiously, i think we just invite the department heads and we already know the five of them, for the most part. >> can they give you an idea of what they can and cannot do? >> i think it's always nice to be able to ask questions. certainly, it is helpful if they want to provide some commentary in advance so that they can ask for sophisticated questions. but i would strongly -- first of all, it's helpful to ask

questions and second, to commissioner ukutio, i think it's important we build relationships with this body and these agency heads because our community is in so much crisis and because we are going to have to work closely with these folks. i think it's important we get to a place where we are having -- at least some kind of relationship and some kind of communication and we're not just some ether -- there's faces associated with it. and so, i don't mind getting a written response but in addition to meeting with us in person. but i would want them to meet with us in person or virtually. anybody else? director, do you feel you have enough to move forward?

any other questions or comments you want to add? >> no, i have enough to move forward. >> good. do we have any public comment on item number -- whatever item number we're over. i think we're on number three. >> no one is on the public comment line. >> seeing no comment, public comment is closed. is there any further discussion? no, there's not. next item, please. >> item 4, update on the city budget and budget adjustments required of the office of small business, fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year '21-'22, discussion item, the presenter is regina, director of the office of small business.

>> i'm going to share -- attempt at sharing a slide. can you see this? at this point, based on the budget situation, we can anticipate that there won't be much variance, in terms of the proposed budget, except for dealing with the budget cuts.

so right now, the first slide that you see here is this is the projected deficit of the entire. taking a look at the low-end was 195 million to then the high-end at 224 and now, we're taking a look at heading up close to -- looking at -- i'm sorry, those numbers don't look accurate and this is what was provided by the budget office. but we're looking at close to over $700 million and could be rising close to a billion.

so this is the office of small business' budget and right now, without budget cuts, so the personnel, we have -- this is the cost for the personnel of staffing the office of small business and this budget does include -- this line item does include the one staff that was added last year for the legacy business program or in this budget cycle and that position carried forward into the 2021. but we have not hired for that person. so next is the overhead, our operational expenses are just over 93,000 and the legacy business program is at a steady budget of one millio 1,024,000 s

could go down if we have a good number of businesses closing due to the delay and the extension of the business registration filing, that we don't yet have the n o number of businesses tht will be renewing their business registration. and so the total budget that we're projecting is at 2,522,850. >> how much of that million-dollars legacy business is grants? >> that one million is grants. >> it's all grants? >> yes. and moving into 2021, most of

that million will be absorbed by the rent stabilization grant. >> so we've taken from the legacy business fund to sustain the rent stabilization. is that correct? no, i apologize, you meant rent stabilization under the legacy program. >> correct. we have a standing one million dollars committed to the legacy business preservation fund and, so, the preservation fund in the preservation fund, the rent stabilization fund and the business assistance grant. >> side question, how many legacy businesses have announced they're closing in the wake of covid-19? >> to date, rick has been very good about being in touch with them. we have had a couple of legacy businesses close and that was

pre- covid and none have made official announcements. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, i think there was a comment. >> this is commissioner man inning y. ny. this is, apples, perhaps withind question but i'll ask anyway. the controller's office is asking for proposed cuts, but our office is on the frontlines trying to save small businesses from extinction and so, are there any special dispensations for departments that are providing a very crucial service? speaking specifically about the office of small business and the legacy business fund and how are you hearing about businesses about these cuts and everyone has to be doing cuts is no one

gets exemptions. >> well, the general approach. the plan a is what the commission and the department determine is the best budget to execute the roles responsibilities of the department. and as it fits into this particular current time. and a further slide, i will be going over the recommendations and guidance around dealing with the budget cuts. and doing the best advocacy for that budget that both -- that the commission determines is

needed for the department to execute its work. >> so the commission can help advocate for a budget that we feel will allow the department to succeed in its goals, right? that is a role that the commission can play to help you? >> yes. and the commission is to approve the budget so that is one of your roles and responsibilities.

the mayor's budget directive is to do a 10% reduction. the third line is what that additional 5% contingency would be and then, looking at year two, to a 15% reduction is.

, the dollar amount. there's covid operating and guidelines and vulnerable populations and provide equitable services for underserved population. our servicwe don't have contracy departments do with non-project organizations to help execute their programs and reduction of

personnel costs, streamlining operations and consolidation and new revenue options. this will be something i work with the finance department and i'll be working with the commission president and vice president and, then, so you will have that and our next meeting is june 8th meeting. and then, the mayor's budget office, it's under review during june and july. and the board of supervisors is under review in august and then the budget is adopted.

and so, as noted here, the first commission in june, i'll present the budget and items that i wil. items that i will be taking into consideration is, yes, this is a bit of an unknown, but pre- covid, our client services were up 20% over the previous year and the number of staff positions that the offices had in relationship to client services has not increased since 2008.

supervisor's offices and the business, in general. so that's the end of my budget presentation for now. so happy to take questions. >> commissioner dool earthquakes. ey.

>> i would say our small businesses and if we're also dealing with a priority from the

mayor and the board of supervisors, focusing on the equity lense, that's a vulnerable population. so our office is directly dellindealing with vulnerable populations. our client services particularly were dealing with pre- co-vidcoh populations and so we are providing those direct services >> if we feel like we're not being heard, or that it's going a different direction, then,

think, we regroup and talk about whether, as a commission, we want to take some sort of more normaformal action. but i think, probably, informal communications is probably more helpful right now at this point in time. and we all have extensive networks and friends in both of the relevant bodies, so i think we should just make sure that everybody understands that osb has taken on a lot more work and, you know, a budget reduction should be off the table and we should strongly consider at least some sort of modest increase to the budget to better address this moment and i think the commission's works speaks for itself in terms of what osb staff has been facilitating and i think that is

another component here. so, those are my observations. i open it up to anybody that feels differently or would like to at or subtract from what i've just said. seeing none, director, are you otherwise done with your presentation? >> i am done with my presentation. >> ok. >> so we will open it up to public comment. is there any other public comment on item number, whatever number we're on now, 4. laughter [ laughter ] >> no one is on the line. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> next item, please. >> item 5, director's report on the office of small business and small business programs,

policies and announcements regards activities. discussion item. >> commissioners, i am sharing with you my director's report. so our covid updates, the small business councillors to date have serviced 2,230 businesses and that was by close of business day on friday and that's up 210 from my last report to you at the last commission meeting. we've sent out to date a total of 28 informational eblasts to small businesses. in addition, our office has worked with -- we worked with ssf and our legacy businesses to initiate the developing of b to b, ppe purchasing list and

knowing that there is interest and the city is looking at whether it can help support small businesses in procuring ppe, that being explored, and so is a ways away and knowing that businesses had to access ppe, we have put together resource list and it is now up on the sf gov website under the covid section and that link is there. so everything from hand sanitizer, mansio masks, facials for cash registers and things of that sort. and really want to express our appreciation to the number of local businesses that are providing this information and want to be a part of it and support our local businesses. , our small businesses.

and did a quick analysis, so i don't have a detailed analysis, but the number of businesses that have closed since 3/16 to 5/21 is 825 and that i have been able to pull up on the sf data website and i did not have time to be able to take a look at what are the number of food related businesses, regular retail and to be able to categorize them, but that is being worked on and we'll provide that to you. and it is a little bit less than the same period last year and i anticipate that part of that is because generally, in march, is when businesses have to file for their licenses' renewals and if a business has not identified it, then when they receive the notice for their license

renewal, they end up closing their business. but, i think we should anticipate -- >> operator: we're sorry, your conference is ending now. please hang up. >> we can anticipate to see -- i mean, anticipate that these numbers will rise over the next month. and next, our office is working in support with oewd on efforts to develop the guidelines for the return-to-work and so, our office is focusing on personal services. as the commissioner mentioned, in that criteria, also are dentists, po podiat rits and wee

working on chiropractors, massager therapists, day spas, pet groomers. they urged the governor to waive the finds for small businesses and this has been something that our office has been engaged with and working with the department of the environment and making these changes, but the fines are still being levied on our small businesses and so, really do want to appreciate supervisor

hainey for doing the resolution. it's state, not local, but we did have the cosponsors for supervisor walton and safaye and it passed last week. and then, there are two pieces of legislation -- actually, a third, but i did not include, but today, we received a referral on a motion ordering -- this will be for the ballot and so a referral for the commission to weigh in on this ballot measure. and that's proposed for the ballot by the board of supervisors. they're dealing with the grocers satisfactiogross receipts and t.

supervisor peskin, the reduced fee and approval process, that was referred to us, but that is not making any movement right now since the stay-in-place has been in place. and then also supervisor peskin did introduce the third party delivery at seacap, separate from the emergency declaration after the emergency declaration is over and he's proposing legislation and that, then, would carry on. afterwards. if you are not aware, supervisor

weiner introduced a bill, sb 39n echo from me? >> not right now. >> the bill deals with commercial tendencies and this actually is reflective of a very specific request that the commission had in its letter to the mayor to advocate at the federal level to release small business owners about the standing lease obligations, if they permanently closed due to covid. there are other requirements there and i will make sure you get a copy of it. but that's in the bill,

definitely, addressing. and i am now having to work on planning how how this office will operate once the stay-in-order place is lifted or allowing workers, city hall will open back up. and with the understanding that the social distancing requirements are going to be applied to office space and so, how will the office function and provide its counseling, knowing that not all staff can return to the office and work.

and what kind of technology will we need to have to continue to conduct our counseling while complying with the social distancing and hopefully not interfering with our ability to service the need of the small business. businesses. and, then, dealing with contingency plan for in we have to have reduced hours of operation. so that concludes my report for now and i'm happy to take any questionses have.

any questions? seeing none, any public comment on the director's report. seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> commissioners report. reporting on making announcements that are of interest to the small business community and discussion items. >> commissioner ortiz. >> i just wanted to defensive aa shout-out, i have had help from several businesses that help med with the mission food bank and

even though they're on super hard times, their commitment to community is unwavering and that is what small business is and that is why it's is crucial toro our community. if you allow me to read off the businesses. evan and gill, john and gill clark from foreign cinema, eric from grocery harbour and jeff and edward goman pair operator (inaudible). i appreciate all of your help and all of the businesses i just mentioned. you help the community.

so thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. just to add on to that. as a percentage of next, i don't know anybody that's contributed more than small business. you know, it's one thing.

they still make a contribution, to me that's a lot more meanin meaningful and it's exactly what makes small business so critical to our city, is because that commitment to community and i really appreciate you raising up those people that make those contributions and making sure that those contributions are publically noted. so thank you. commissioner. >> thank you, this is commissioner manny and working on a lot of things and there's one i want to bring up here, which is, we are in the midst -- we have bid out to a few vendors to come back to illuminate the corridor and we'll be engaging

in a fundraising campaign and i talked to my counsel and they're offering us $1500 to help with the project and we will need to raise more money in order to fund it. so we're hoping to actually get the corridor illuminated and it will be an exciting feature and bringing featur people to the va corridor and this is a stretch of small businesses in america.

>> they were generous in giving me time to speak at the end of the meeting and i updated cdma on the recovery task force and got a delightful bit of feedback from daniel in north beach. i'm afraid i don't know his last name because zoom didn't say it. it's mackarini. >> there it is. he had issues with formula

retail and then he said that commissionercommissioner dooleys ally for many years and he is one of my favourite people and i'm so honoured to serve with her. and that she is a firecracker that tells it like it is. i just wanted to convey your name was brought up and we had a discussion and i relayed, you knoandthis will take voter actio change it and let's not get too

districdistractedded about our recommendation t. this won't be something anyone can make big changes to. and i have had nonstop communications with all of the business associations almost everyday. i wanted to move forward on the memo and it was a bit of a distraction.

it was very thoughtful and i begged him for the public comment and we got a public comment in morning and i've read it but i haven't read it in detail. i'm hoping to reach out to each of those business owners and just let them know that we read it and we did our best to represent their views. i think there's another e rtf ed there's something else. i am having some background conversations about how to move forward on hcso and it's such an incredibly challenging topic to engage in, thoughtfully an, witi

think the recent revelation there's $140 million in a fund that hasn't benefited workers or small businesses is an important revelation. (please stand by).