PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

are, if the business is open to the public broadly and does not sell to any "specialized occupation, profession or business ". In other words, if the retail operation is open to the public generally and does not specialize in selling to architects or engineers or haberdasheries or whatever, or if the answer to that is "no" that there is no differentiation, then it suggests there could be an exemption to the coverage. The second is, is income from any particular customer of this retailer distinguishable from their income in general. So in other words, do you have a customer who contributes $25, $30, $56, or whatever the amount is of your income that changes in the DSP would impact their ability to remain your primary income source and therefore you may be motivated to make recommendations on the task force that affects their specific ability to buy your jewelry, right? So again, if that's not possible for your actions on the task force, the potential is that it leads to an exemption. So, having said all of that, here is specifically what I ask as I said a moment ago is that we further the excellent work that Larissa has done with the FPPC; that we understand that because the FPPC staff has communicated in writing with the City Attorney's office, the only way I would think you would feel comfortable operating under an exemption is for them to further put in writing, yes, under these circumstances you are exempt, or in other words, we need to work with them, and that we pursue that and that we put off action from this evening. Commissioner O'Connor: I think we have to ask Nancy if she wants to pursue that. Commissioner Allen: I do. I really wanted to be on the task force and if it was clear cut that I was out of compliance then I said so be it because it is important to be in compliance, but actually if there's a legitimate reason for exclusion and we get support from the FPPC, I would love to be on the task force because then I am in support of the state law and regulations. So I guess I would look to Larissa. I appreciate, David, you taking the time to do this. It's amazing and thank you. It means a lot to me. How do you feel about this? I didn't have any idea on this. I mean, how do you feel about this? Seto: To date, as we've discussed, since about August we've been in communications; the City Attorney's Office and myself in particular have been in communications with staff counsel at the FPPC with regard to several different public officials and more recently with Nancy, and Nancy has seen my communication with staff counsel there. So typically the process is we pose questions to them and ask them how various regulations apply. The most recent response we received back was, as described in the staff report, that they found that because Studio 7 is a source of income to Nancy's business of which she's a sole proprietor; that that source of income and the regulations regarding sources of income involved in specific plan decisions made her ineligible to serve. So if you wanted us to write back to them asking about other exemptions, we can do that, but at the same time I understand that some of these other exemptions the thresholds are actually very difficult to meet but I could continue to work with you to do that. Commissioner Allen: I would love that. I think David brings up some potentials that seem to me that I would love to have a discussion to make sure they're fully vetted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 46 of 49