tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 1, 2018 9:00am-10:01am PDT
>> welcome to our land use committee meeting of may 21, 2018. i'm katy tang, to my right, jane kim, to my left supervisor safai and we're joined by supervisor peskin. madame clerk, any announcements before us? >> clerk: please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clark. items acted upon today will appear on the may 29 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> item number 1 is ordinance amending the planning code to increase the transportation sustainability fee by $5 for projects larger than 99,999
gross feet except in the central south of market area plan. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madame chair and colleagues, and thank you for the chair for scheduling this item and hearing it after the unfortunate scheduling snafu at planning, that was heard by the planning commission, though the 90 days had lapsed and you're all in receipt of a letter dated friday, may 18, which indicates the unanimous recommendation for this legislation by the planning commission. as a matter of fact if you watch the planning commission hearing, commissioners representing a range of perspectives on the commission actually pushed back on the discussion around whether or not the $2 fee in the central
soma should be higher. but we're overall in agreement that the $2 in the central soma plan was probably still too low. but recommended the tsf legislation that is before you today. the new protections put out by the planning department based on what is pepping in the pipeline, shows a significant compromise in the desire. in the desire to accommodate concerns by the planning staff, even though their own study showed that a $5 increase was not only feasible, but actually a drop in the bucket. we've taken the projected revenue down from 23 million dollars to $12 million with this compromise, but we know that the numbers don't really give us an accurate prediction of the future, which is of course volatile. what is before us is a policy
decision that i think we should have made some time ago before for instance, the sales force tower went up and the building that continues to be at a fever pitch throughout the city. today, we have the opportunity to really plan for the future and not make that same mistake again. we have the opportunity to create a transportation fee baseline now that can be reevaluated later and from time to time, and i think we should redo the feasibility study from 2015, because i think we'll find there are other tiers that can be explored in this current hot market. and the vacancy and rental assumptions made by planning three years ago are out of date. but most importantly the lack of public outcry reinforces what the planning commission knows and said last thursday, these
projects are absolutely feasible. that increase to transportation structure benefits these large commercial projects. and again, we heard this two weeks ago, we have a lot of public support, we did not hear any words of opposition. nor did the planning commission and a publicly noticed meeting last thursday, and with that, colleagues, i commend this piece of legislation to you and i would like to thank all of the supporters we heard from at the last meeting. and hope that we can send this to the full board with recommendation. >> supervisor tang: thank you, supervisor peskin. colleagues, which other further comments, questions? all right. and do any of the department staff want to say anything?
>> the san francisco planning department, i want to reiterate on may 17, the planning commission voted unanimously to support the proposed increase in the tsf, $2 in central soma and $5 elsewhere. that concludes the presentation, i'm here for questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you for that. at this time, i'll open it up to public comment then for item number 1. >> my demonstration is not only going to give information pertaining to the topic, but also the 30-day rule where agenda is going to take place pertaining to business and tax of the planning code of south market. in order for that tax code to be put into effect, i want to highlight this information should be taken under consideration. for the year, 2017, there is a total of $873,923,572 of
uncollected taxes from twitter and nine other high-tech companies. this came out in 2017. the year before that, there was a total of $1,357,216,777 of uncollected taxes. that's a total of 2,271,171,143,of uncollected taxes. that is proof how the high tech companies are getting preferential treatment and it's putting a bind on all the departments and all the people that are economically disadvantaged and vulnerable and have a combination of mental and physical disabilities in our veterans and homeless people. you're wasting money on shelters when the truth of the matter is,
this should be spent on low-income families to stop the homeless problem. safai asks how can you finance the homeless problem? i showed him $2 billion that has been wasted not collected from twitter and five other high tech companies. now it's nine high tech companies that is taking advantage of these tax breaks. these multibillion dollars companies don't need a break, the people that are economically -- [bell ringing] -- and homeless on the street need a break. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, jeremy polak, speaking on my lunch break, thank you for considering this. i would like to echo supervisor peskin's comments. i think in general i urge you to support this, at least as proposed here. it's clear to me that the central soma plan could stomach
that $5 increase as well. i commend the planning staff on their work on the fiscal feasibility analysis. i think that's really helpful to have those numbers broken down, but that analysis is only as accurate as the data and assumptions that go into it. and seeing analysis based on $74 per square foot price when we saw facebook leasing part towers and that is over $100 square foot, is such a dramatic increase, it shows what incredible demand and profitability there are in the large office towers and we know how much transportation and housing impacts those have. and we need to do a better job of capturing that value. that uncertainty in the cost and the assumptions in these analysis is what drives a lot of the problems we have in coming to an agreement on issues like this fee and inclusionary
housing fee and i urge you to get more certainty and transparency in the numbers. and i think some way to look at the pro forma of the development projects to get a real idea of what the numbers are would go a long way to building trust in these debates we have. [bell ringing] and i think projects that receive public subsidies, you should look at the pro forma to make sure we're all on the same page in debating the fees they pay. i urge you to support this as it's written and reconsider this fee along with the jobs housing fee based on the profitability of office space in the current economic climate. thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, so we wrote you a letter supporting this fee increase and it's very good and i would repeat supervisor peskin's words that's it's really just a drop in the bucket, much more is necessary.
but i would like to think about feasibility. when i see, when you have these fees, what you're doing is reducing the price of the land under any of those projects. and lord knows, that landowners, including myself have had great windfall over the last 40 years in the price of land under the buildings or vacant land. so when you increase the fees, it's not a really big deal as long as the developer has notice and the owner has notice, you should do them in advance, give everybody notice is going to happen, so they negotiate the price of the land, knowing that these fees are going to be in place. and then the fees can be much higher and we can do a better job. because none of those projects are feasible without transit. they need the transit as much all the people who ride it do. you're doing the right thing. >> supervisor tang: any other
members of the public who wish to comment on item 1. >> good afternoon, i'm sharon, we're one of the key development sites in central soma. wanted to say we appreciate the board's consideration as well as the planning department analysis on this. we certainly agree that transportation and infrastructure investment in the neighborhood is very important, which is why the planning process over 16 separate planning commission hearings have created a very comprehensive community benefits package for central soma. $500 million out of the $2 billion anticipated will go toward transportation infrastructure. and we just urge the board to consider that as you move forward into your tsf recommendations as well as the future central soma plans impact fees on your decision today. >> supervisor tang: thank you
very much. any other members of the public, please come on up. >> matt field, tmg partners, thank you again for your work. i'm a resident and native and appreciate focusing on transit sustainability and acknowledge the $5 and $2 in central soma, we appreciate that in respect to project feasibility. and would echo sharon's comments, in the context when you take the greater central soma plan, if you can consider all these fees in context, we would greatly appreciate it, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, mike russo from kill roy corporation. i wanted to give the message we're in support of transportation in the region. would like to respectfully ask
you when you consider central soma to consider the total fee package, including the context of this transportation sustainability fee. if you do adopt it. central soma plan as mentioned already has a very robust fee package. it's been many years in the making and as was also mentioned is generating $500 million for transportation improvements. so we're certainly in agreement that is important funding and would like to keep that context in mind when the central soma plan comes in front of you, thank you very much. >> supervisor tang: any other comments? seeing no other members of the public who wish to comment, i'm going to close public comment for item 1. supervisor kim, i think you want to speak after public comment. >> supervisor kim: yes, thank you, chair tang, i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing back the transportation sustainable fee for large
nonresidential projects. this was a debate when we were -- when supervisor john okay lis reintroduced the iteration of our impact fees and how the large commercial developers pay into the fee, understanding as we create jobs, there is burden on sfmta and we need to make sure we have a transportation system is able to absorb new workers and residents in our growing city. i just want to say that then i did support a larger increase to our transportation sustainability fee for large nonresidential projects. and support the fee increase outside of the central soma plan area. actually, a few weeks ago, when i talked to supervisor peskin, i asked to hold back the central soma fees as we are currently looking at all the fees as a whole in the central soma plan in late june.
however, the planning commission has now heard the central soma plan and has heard the tsf increase and they have recommended the $2 increase for the central soma plan. so understanding that this is now been supported by the planning commission, i'm happy to support this today. we will have an overall conversation on all of the fees as the central soma plan moves forward to the full board through june and the beginning of july. i'm certainly happy to continue this conversation, but i think given the strong recommendation from the planning commission, i'm ready to support this today. >> supervisor tang: thank you. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just had a couple of questions for maybe staff? you can come back up. can you just reiterate, i know supervisor peskin was telling us, but how does this generate inside central soma and outside. >> the $2 is about $12 million.
let me get that. >> supervisor safai: either one of you is fine, maybe ms. jones from sfmta. >> yeah, the $2 increase in central soma and the $5 elsewhere would generate under our estimates $11.4 million. >> supervisor safai: how much inside of central soma? >> 8.2. >> and then 3 outside of central soma. >> supervisor safai: is that attached to the actual feasibility. i know the last time the feasibility said it did not compute for central soma. >> the department analysis was that it did not compute, however the planning commission is feeling strong, it probably could. >> supervisor safai: what was some of the reasoning behind that? >> they didn't hear anybody via
e-mail, via public testimony -- >> supervisor safai: there was no financial analysis, it was based on the response from the community? >> yeah. >> supervisor safai: is there a component in here that talks about redoing the feasibility. >> supervisor peskin: the answer is yes and i spoke to that in my remarks and planning is intending to do that in the coming year. but i also wanted to hark back to something i said a couple of weeks ago, which is that in our other incarnation as the san francisco county transportation authority and saying this remembering that the sales tax tanked and that we have the collective responsibility as part of the transportation task force, 2045 endeavor to find $100 million a year. and as i was clear in the last meeting, this $10-12 million would actually come out of
whatever instrument we bring forward, hopefully in november, in order to do our collective part. i also wanted to say that -- >> supervisor safai: i had another -- >> supervisor peskin: sure i just want to add one thing. there are six major sites in the central soma. you have representatives from half of them here today who have stated what they've stated for the record. but i have to say this. which is every single one of these six property owners and developers or companies under contract to buy property, are extremely sophisticated. each and every one of them pay lobbyists and consultants to read our agendas, week in and week out. this tsf is not a secret.
in fact, it was written about publicly, you didn't need a lobbyist or someone who reads the board agenda or legislation introduced, it was the subject of a hearing at this committee. it was the subject of a planning commission hearing. and i do want to state, because i'm mildly annoyed by it, that were it not for an unsolicited e-mail communication from a city official who was actually defying what the planning commission, the oversight body appointed four members by the mayor and three members by the president of the board of supervisors, acted upon last thursday, had that e-mail not gone out on friday, they would not be here. but i am certain that their lobbyists and consultants knew this legislation is pending. so this is a mildly manufactured thing and i had to get that off my chest because the individual
who did that knows i'm less than pleased about it. >> supervisor safai: so back to my question, through the chair, it was about the feasibility. and i appreciate that, supervisor, i'm not trying to mine myself that. what i want to -- minimize that. can we put into the legislation that we have a process for the review? >> supervisor peskin: we do. you can see mr. sanchez is nodding his head. we have that, we are the board of supervisors, we take anything up, simple answer i'm not comfortable inserting that. >> supervisor safai: not for central soma, for the transportation sustainability fee so we can see how this plays out. i'm fine with what you're proposing today, but what i mean is have the opportunity to look at the fee itself and what impact it has on nonresidential overall, so we can have a report back and see how the impact is.
>> supervisor tang: if i can jump in, and correct me if i'm wrong, department staff, but the controller's office is supposed to do analysis of the impact fees every five year and the next time they would do it is next year. this feeds into my comments from the last committee meeting, but i would have liked us to be considering increases to any fees, whether in central soma or elsewhere after the analysis or future analysis would have been done. that would have been my preference. i also shared for about $12 million, you know, it's a small amount, for a lot of the pains they're going through, but i also understand the responsibility that supervisor peskin has and feels with his role as the t.a. and the chair there.
in any case -- ok -- those are my thoughts. but to answer your question, the controller office will have analysis on the impact fees next year. >> supervisor safai: on the tsf? >> supervisor tang: these are impact fees in general. maybe the staff can answer that. >> supervisor safai: i was referring to the idea of this new fee that is going be added to nonresidential. and then having the opportunity to come back and look at the feasibility and what impact that has on incentivizing or disincentivizing. i think it's going to be a positive report based on the passionate feelings of the planning commission. >> supervisor tang: why don't we turn it over to ms. jones? >> yes, sfmta planning director, sarah jones. there is a review of all city-wide fees every five years,
but the board of supervisors also included analysis on a three-year cycle of economic feasibility. >> supervisor safai: is that currently in this ordinance or is that company wide policy? >> yes, we've incorporated into our budget supporting the planning department in conducting that feasibility study. >> supervisor safai: if we pass this today, how much time will pass before we have understanding of the fiscal impact and feasibility of this, three years? >> no. for this upcoming year, the study is going to be undertaken in the next few months. >> supervisor safai: so a year from now, this will be studied? >> within the upcoming year. >> supervisor safai: got it. ok. that sounds good. thank you, madame chair. >> supervisor tang: ok, so hearing that, i could have gone
both ways, right? i would have again preferred that regardless if it was a controller analysis of the city-wide impact fees or the tsf feasibility analysis coming up in the upcoming year, i would have loved the increase to be associated with those studies, but you know, i will defer to our district supervisor where much of the impact is, as well as the planning commission that supported it. so it is what it is today. supervisor safai, still comments? >> supervisor safai: one more through the chair to supervisor peskin, when i heard the comments, i think we talked about this for a second, the idea that there is $500 million in fees that are being generated by central soma. there is a lot of conversation about transportation and overall fees. we're going to be taking that up in the next two months. so the idea of taking this and putting it into the consideration of that and potentially having that --
>> supervisor peskin: why don't we have ms. jones attempt to address that who will be more articulate than i ever will be. >> this is just scratching the surface of the issue, but there is a distinction between what the fees that come off of development projects pay related specifically to an area plan, or to a community benefit district, and what we are able to spend our transportation sustainability fees on. the money that is levied onto development projects in the context of an area plan, some of it goes to that invisible stuff that nobody really wants to think about or pay for. but most of it does go to something that is clearly tied to and supporting a development project like a complete streets project right there.
or you know, transit. or transportation infrastructure that is within the area and enhancing the area and the development projects overall. in contrast, transportation sustainability fee is a funding source that helps us put money into the transportation system in ways that improves it in sort of a more invisible basic kind of way, so for example, you can use transportation sustainability fee to pay for a new engine for a bus that extends the life of that bus, deals with state of good repair, that kind of thing. so it's not a directly comparable funding source that you can just swap out indiscriminately. so there is a certain value to mta of tsf that doesn't come from the projects.
which are also very important improvements as well. >> supervisor safai: i get that. that makes sense. thank you for the explains. through the chair, i would say that in the context of all the fees considered in this larger package coming up at central soma, there is a point by which we cannot go past, otherwise some of the projects become unsustainable. so i it's important to consider that in the larger context since we're to the end of the road on that debate. we want to consider this fee as part of the larger package that is coming in front of us, but thank you for the distinction, one seems to be more local to the area and one can have impact on the area, but impact in other areas of the city as well. i appreciate that distinction. thank you, madame dam char x. >> supervisor kim: we are currently working with our key
site developers and other soma developers and the community on developing a cohesive plan with all of the fees. it's not to discourage what is happening today, but i feel very confident that when we make a final vote, it will be a comprehensive look at everything together. i feel comfortable supporting the $2 fee and it will be known to everyone that transportation is important. we're not try to prevent development in central soma. we want ta thank to happen. -- we want that to happen. i do feel comfortable moving forward with this today. it's not that we get another bite at the apple, but again, the whole plan is coming before the land use committee on june 25th. >> supervisor tang: thank you. appreciate your comments. with that, colleagues, do we
want to have a motion? any further debate? >> supervisor kim: i'll move for recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor tang: we'll do that without objection. any other items today? >> clerk: there is no further business. >> supervisor tang: thank you, we are adjourned. >> this is the regular meeting of the small business commission monday, may 21, 2018.
the meeting is being called to order at 2:10 p.m. small business commission thanks media services and sfgov-tv for televising the meeting, which can be viewed on sfgov2, channel 78, or sfgovtv.org. members of the public, please take this community to -- opportunity to silence your phone. public comment is limited to 3 minutes per speaker. speakers are requested but not required to state their names. completion of a speaker card, while optional, will help to ensure proper spelling of names in the written record. please place speaker cards in the basket to the right of the lectern. they will be called in the order in which they were placed in the basket.
>> it is our custom to begin and end each meeting with a reminder that the office of small business is the only place to start your new business in san francisco and it's the best place to get answers to your questions about doing business in san francisco. it should be your first stop when you have questions about what to do next. best of all, all of our services are free of charge. it's the official public forum to voice opinions and concerns about policies that affect the economic vitality of small businesses here in san francisco. if you need assistance, start here.
[roll call] >> mr. president, you have a quorum. >> general public comment. allows comments on the standard jurisdiction but not on today's calend calendar. >> do we have any members of the public that would like to make comment on any items that are not on today's agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> item 3, recognition of todd rufo as director of office of economic and work force development. discussion item. >> the todd rufo roast. we didn't tell you that.
this is the best part about this job. todd rufo was appointed director of economic and work force development august 9, 2012. the office of economic and work force development budget for 2017/2018 was $60.7 million. and todd oversees a staff of 131 people. under todd's leadership, the office transformed to a leading agency of its kind in the united states that strengthens the economic vitality of san francisco by strengthening the businesses and work force. todd brought impact-driven leadership with multiple agencies, private and nonprofit sector partnerships.
under todd's leadership, helped small businesses start, stay and grow in san francisco. and some of their accomplishments that happened under todd was the san francisco small business portal, which guides business owners through permitting and legal compliance, mayor lee and todd also created small business solutions teams. they launched sfbiz connect and created san francisco's first buy local campaign and shop and dine in the 49. oewd oversaw the creation of 130,000 jobs in san francisco. and when todd came in, remember, we were in a recession, and look at what you've done. and you've contributed to lowering san francisco's unemployment rate from 6.9% to 2.1%, the lowest in the city's history. todd also won the 2016 james
irvine foundation leadership award for reviving urban manufacturing to create middle class jobs. todd was a proponent of equality-driven work force programs bringing living wage careers for san francisco and low-income communities to initiatives like the mayor summer jobs program, youth jobs, tech sf, city build, and since 2012, the mayor's youth jobs initiative has connected 41,000 san francisco youth into internships and job opportunities. 81% of the youth everybody served are from low income neighborhoods. under todd's leadership, they oversaw major developments, including the transbay terminal, treasure island, sf general
hospital, mission rock, plumbers union, pier 70 and new chase center. investment in neighborhoods under oewd leadership, launched invest in neighborhoods initiative that strengthens commercial corridors and neighborhoods across the city and facilitates the community benefit districts. since its creation, over $85 million has been invested in san francisco corridors and small business. i would like to present a certificate of honor from the small business commission to todd rufo. places and best of luck. >> thank you. i appreciate it. [applause] >> commissioner adams, let me begin by saying, thank you so
much for that and the entire commission for this opportunity and this honor. you know, i feel like i've had the opportunity and fortune and honor to work with each of you and this commission to do everything that we can for this city, which we care about and love so much. everything that as the commissioner was reading through, that long list, i was thinking about each of you and the conversations that i've had with you about your priorities here at the commission, but also the stake holders, whether small business, local manufacturer, neighboring commercial corridor, merchant association or group and then i was thinking about the team members, many of whom are sitting here today, who are really the reason that we were able to do so much. it's to them that we should -- that i really see this honor and this recognition. joaquin torres, regina, what user done on the business
portal. and the work creating open nsf to help to facilitate business permits. rick, the work you are doing, on the legacy business program. the list goes on and on. i think my main message it all of you is that the important work of the department of oewd will continue. it will continue because of your guidance and your advice and your policy leadership, but it will also continue because of the amazing talent and team at oewd. with that, i want to say thank you for the recognition and opportunity to be here today. [applause] i'm used to being up here for tough questions, so looking forward to sitting down. >> well deserved. with that, do we have public comment?
>> henry kanell. todd has been a really great lead leader. commissioner adams, you spoke of what he did with his leadership to make it what it is or the small business to be successful. as we all know, small business is the backbone of the community. and because it's people like todd that make us what we are. secondly, also, i would like to really appreciate the collaboration that's come between shop and dine 49 and district merchants. it has put small business on the map as well as the council. todd, thank you very much. also, all the best to you. congratulations. have a great time in new york. great city. i loved it when i was there.
enjoy your stay over there. and i hope to visit you one of these days and we'll have a drink together. thank you. >> good afternoon. steven cornell. i want to add everything that henry said and what the president -- commissioner adams said. i've been doing this for a long time and it's always a pleasure to have somebody in government that i feel helps us out. and i thank todd and his team that has helped us do that. it's really great and i'm sorry he's going to leave. thank you. >> thank you. >> scott halgary.
i would like to echo the thoughts about todd. he's been terrific to work with and as steven said one of our major efforts is to bring small business to the table and he's done a great job reaching out and bringing discussions. so thank you very much, todd, and all the best to you in the future. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. joaquin torres, deputy director of economic work force development. with the limited time i have, i want to echo from a staff perspective how extraordinary it's been to have such an incredible boss and also someone who cared deeply. i think maybe more than any other director at the economic and work force development office about both community and neighborhoods in a very significant way that was felt not only by the people that he
was directing, myself included, but community members across the city. it's rare when you get someone who is such a believer in professional development, who helps you build your team. i want to thank you and the representatives behind me that recognize such a great leader for our city and county of san francisco. thank you for making this happen and making this space. >> thank you. any other members? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, thank you, todd, for everything. san francisco's loss is new york's gain, but we'll see you still. don't worry. okay. next item, please. >> todd, i also wanted to thank
you for your contributions to the city and to help us. i know that every time i come to you for help, you come through very nicely. so good luck with your new endeavor. we'll miss you. >> director. >> thank you. i wanted to extend my appreciation. it's been a great pleasure to work for you and with you and i've learned so much. you've been a great mentor and i think, you know, commissioner adams just really spoke to the bredth of what you've been able to accomplish. your passionate, economic development and economic development at all levels of business and employment and while i think the city, it's a loss for us, but i'm also very excited that if you're able to
accomplish 1/4 of what you have been able to accomplish here in san francisco in sort of the rural parts of the u.s., it's to the u.s.'s gain and to the world's gain of what you have to offer. so looking forward to that. >> commissioner zouzounis. >> thank you. i wanted to say, ever since i started on the commission, you were open to who i was trying to reach, and you kept that in mind through your -- the last couple of years and really brought those perspectives whether it was in the immigration roundtable with the mayor or what not, you helped me get the perspectives where they needed to be heard, so i appreciated that. thank you. >> i have one more request. would todd come up here and take a picture with all of us? >> yes.
>> okay. next item, please. item 4, approval of legacy business registry application and resolution. knights' catering. richard kurylo, presenter, legacy business program manager. >> good afternoon, commissioners, small business staff, richard kurylo, legacy business program manager. sfgov tv, i have a power point presentation. before you today is one
application for your consideration for a business to be include on the legacy business registry. the application was reviewed by me for completion and then submitted to planning department staff on april 4. the historic preservation commission heard the presentation may 2 and made a positive recommendation. for the applicant, the commission has been provided a staff report, draft resolution, application, case report from planning department staff, and a resolution from the historic planning commission. there are copies on the table for the public. the applicant is knights' catering. the business began as knights' restaurant in october, 1963, at 234 mccallister street and quickly became a popular eatery in the civic center neighborhood. they became to be relied on for
business needs, which prompted the expansion of citywide catering. they moved in 1978 and 1989, at which time, the business focused solely on catering. a rent increase forced them to move to south san francisco. despite being located just outside of city limits, knights' business was still very much in san francisco, catering to san franciscan s. they continued to secure and pay for city regulation certificates. by 2004, business was able to return to its founding city and establish headquarters in its current location at 2255 mendle street. the mcgoverns son and daughter
bought the business in 1996. in 2004, maureen and her husband, bought the business outright and are the sole owners. knights has helped many again raugss celebrate births -- generations celebrate births and weddings and disaster relief in 1989 earthquake and catering for pope john paul ii's visit in 1987. knights' catering received a positive recommendation from h.p.c. staff finds that the business has met the three criteria for listing on the legacy registry. a motion in support of the business should be a motion in favor of the resolution.
in the resolution, pay close attention to the physical features that define the business. the business must maintain these to remain on the legacy registry. for knights' catering, it's catering. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions. and there are representatives that are in attendance that would like to speak on the application's behalf. >> great. let's open it up. public comment. do we have anybody from knights' catering? come on up. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for taking the time to see us. >> my name's molly. >> my name's grace. >> daniel. >> i need to have you speak into the mike. >> my name's molly.
>> my name's grace. >> daniel. >> and i think my husband, adrian is lost somewhere. these are the continued legacy of knights' catering that are working with us part time and some full time in the business as well. and we -- my parents worked very hard to take knights catering to a level where we're known and recognized throughout san francisco and i'm excited at the prospect of being able to continue that legacy through san francisco. for the past 55 years, we've been welcomed in san francisco homes and businesses to cater many special occasions. as a result, we've had the great pleasure of developing longstanding relationships, some have spanned many generations. we've been honored to change the
san francisco communities and proud to have knights' catering considered. it allows us the opportunity to maintain a permanent place in the hearts and fabric of the people we serve and this glorious city we call our home. thank you for taking the time. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to say anything? go ahead. come up here. >> they don't know me, but i know them. they're one of the finest traditions in san francisco. they're the go-to caterer for anything and everything you would ever want in san francisco. they've evolved with time. i'm the communications person for economic and work force development. when i saw your name on the list, i was really touched
because they catered my father's funeral and my father was a san francisco police officer who died in the line of duty. so when i saw it, i was touched, because in the hardest time of our life, we reached out to them and with very few support from our house, they actually catered the most unbelievable funeral for my father. and when i think about them and i think about them and all the work that they do here in the schools, i think about how easy and wonderful they are to work with, but really how they've consistently produced quality, quality, quality catering at a very reasonable price in san francisco, which is not something that's always easy to do. for this quick minute, i'm ma e marian thompson. i want to thank them forking the go-to for everything. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public?
seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commission commissioner. >> we dabble in catering once in a while. it's not easy. the personal relationship is probably what makes it the most successful. i commend you on that and keeping that legacy in the city. >> commissioner riley? >> i love reading the history and looking at the beautiful pictures that you provided. thank you. >> commissioner dooley? >> i want to say it's a pleasure to add such an obviously deserving group of people to the legacy business. this is what it was designed to honor and support, so welcome. >> do we have a motion? >> i move to approve. >> second. >> there's a motion by commissioner riley, seconded by
commissioner dooley. roll call. [roll call] motion passes 4-0 with two absent. >> congratulations. [applause] next item, please. >> item 5, presentation and possible action to support pet-related businesses regarding efforts to maintain their businesses. businesses in the castro and noe valley, small businesses, smaller, locally owned independent pet stores and groomers are working to prevent possible closure. >> good afternoon. i'm rick french. >> who is presenting?
you are separate from public comment. >> okay. i'm rick french. daniel burgerak -- >> thank you. >> i'm just going to -- since sage put this power point thing, i'm not sure if it's going to work. it's not going -- she assured me it was wasn't going to be her summer vacation on the slides. i'm the owner of the animal company, along with my wife, ellen. and we're -- as far as we know, oldest independent small business pet shop in san francisco. it's been there for 43 years. and there is a threat for all of us with a chain store, 13-store chain coming up from l.a., to really infringe on the neighborhood, not only just because of the type of business that they run, but in noe
valley, it's what makes noe valley unique. it's small, little stores, people love to walk up and down the street. when you get an organization like this with rapid growth, a lot of money behind them, it's like opening up, you know, a home depot, but on a smaller scale. and there's a reason that there's an ordinance for not having chains in certain areas of the city and so we're looking for your support and your help to -- next month, in 30 days, we go up in front of the planning commission, hoping to deny them a conditional use permit, which is what they are going to need. i'm sure some of you know the story of this. maybe i should -- so we do need your support. the idea is for them to get a conditional use permit, they have to show a need and a desire
and we've seen in the neighborhood, there is no desire. we have a lot of support. we have a lot of petitions. i have a couple hundred petitions here. you just push the buttons. we have an on-line petition of at least 1,300, almost 1,400 petitions. and we have on-line petitions. it's that the community is behind us. we have tremendous support, good customers, and the threat to all of our businesses that we've establish established, it's a big concern. it will change the flavor of the neighborhood. what you see up here on the map right now is noe valley and the blue outline. the red circle is basically a half mile. and all those little, red squares are residents that have
signed a petition and that represents not any of the on-line petitioned, but just the written signatures, which is upward of 400 to 500. that blue star is my store. it's kind of a ground zero. and if you look to the right, all the red supporting our stand and then that little, blank spot. and that's where they want to put their business, in the old radioshack. and based on the growth they've had, they're going to -- how many stores? >> they've opened nine stores in the last two years. >> so their growth is tremendous. they have a lot of money behind them. we're just a bunch of little, small businesses trying to survive. and so with that, i will -- we don't think there's a desire.