we're getting that feedback from tourists and people visiting san francisco and from residents that they're liking to see the street activity going on. it's happening in my colleague's district, supervisor campos, you'll hear from shortly. it's happening in the fifth district, it's happening throughout many of the sectors of san francisco. and i think this will fit nicely to that particular goal. president o'brien: commissioner o'conner? commissioner o'connor: , a couple of other comments. thank you for putting the legislation together and addressing an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago. first comment was, ticketing events, perhaps, one line to be drawn is that if people are selling advanced tickets, if it's like billed as a show, it doesn't qualify under this legislation. supervisor mirkarimi: right. commissioner o'connor: so that smaller spaces can gain cheaper

access to putting on performances that aren't billed as shows, so to speak. second point was to address commissioner dooley's comment about the time. having experienced putting on shows, i think for the nature of this legislation, 11:00 -- like 10:00 is too early but 12:00 might be too late. 11:00 sounds about right, when a lot of people want to come and see a performance start around 10:00. like you'll have somebody go on before at 9:00 and somebody go on at 10:00 and 11:00 should be fine to end by but that could be addressed further down the road. supervisor mirkarimi: i think we can do that as this advances to the board of supervisors. i think that's very reasonable. president o'brien: commissioner riley? commissioner riley: thank you, again, for sponsoring this legislation.

and i think it's a great idea to lower the application from 1700 to 385 and renewal at $139. i'm curious why $385 and $139. supervisor mirkarimi: this, believe it or not, took the largest amount of time with the city attorney and planning department and entertainment commission, we have to be be absolutely precise about the science as required by law to affix a particular fee system so that it covers the cost of those who are granting the permit. so it strictly is a cost recovery of the administrative process of the permit in itself and that's typically the gauge that's used to help determine how fees are set based on capacity, meaning the size of the place, the businesses that is requiring it and other

variables. president o'brien: any other commissioners? seeing none, for myself, we've read this and it came before us and the subcommittee quite a while ago and we all generally supported it. we see the common sense behind it. i won't regurgitate what's already been said because it kind of covers everything and i don't mean to make you repeat yourself but just for clarity because these were things that came up and were foggy during the discussions, we saw some very complicated maps trying to squeeze this thing in a way that made everybody happy so now it's been simplified. those areas that are already zoned for a regular entertainment permit are now in this area that qualifies for the light entertainment permit, right? supervisor mirkarimi: that's right. the new limited live performance permits will cover the same area in the city where the place of entertainment permits are currently allowed as of right

with the conditional use. president o'brien: and for the south of market situation, we're just going to have to kind of leave it the way it is and leave them out of it for now in the hopes that maybe they'll see the light later on? supervisor mirkarimi: that's another way of putting it. i would certainly welcome interest enlightenment that would i think activate their participation in this, but out of professional courtesy to the host supervisor and the resident neighbors in the areas where there's prohibitions, we decided to keep it out and just make it simple. but, you know, there's a big leap from what advances from this body and feel free to make recommendations that escort this legislation to my colleagues that suggest if we want to expand or elaborate on this, i will be more than happy to carry that message. president o'brien: you may not have gotten this. it's dated 6/13, but it's from

matthew tomly expressing concern that they're not going to be included within the area. supervisor mirkarimi: i didn't see that, no. president o'brien: it's dated today. i just got it. i'll just say that this indicates that there's a body of opinion that would definitely like to be included in that area so it's a voice, a legitimate voice that ought to be heard and maybe we'll reach out to them and they've mentioned that they're having a meeting on monday, june 20, for anybody that wants to attend it so i'll put that out there. i personally support this legislation. i think it's very common sense piece of legislation and i support what commissioner o'connor said. 11:00 is a better time. i don't think that will upset too many people so i'd like to go on the record as supporting that adjustment to it. director? director: you just made mention of the letter from urban

solutions in support of the legislation? president o'brien: yeah. with that, i'll hand it over to the public for public comment. supervisor mirkarimi: i just want to underscore because i know how modest regina is, but she was a big help in this legislation, with the office of workforce development and i very much appreciate that and the entertainment commission and the city attorney's office because it took a bit of navigation to create a new permitting system at a lower cost for a whole population that's never been represented before so this is a bit of a win-win if we're able to make this thing stick. thank you. president o'brien: thank you, supervisor. do we have any public comment, if anybody would like to comment on this matter, please? secretary: public comment will be limited to three minutes. we have elliott wagner and rob black. >> i'm elliott wagner from the

westportal and represent the merchants there. first of all, i would like to applaud the supervisor for making this legislation. president o'brien: make sure you speak into the mic, please. the other one. >> i think it's going to be a great stimulus package for small businesses, and he asked for some enlightenment about the excluded areas and westportal was one of them. maybe i can give him enlightenment there. a lot of the regulations, especially ours for our n.c.d., were created in like 1980 and that was 30 years ago, and the entertainment category was very, very in conflict and it had no subcategories and at this point westportal would still object to the much larger regulations for entertainment, but now that you have a subcategory that's the

limited live performances, westportal would be in favor of that and if that tier existed at the time that our n.c.d.'s were created, we would have asked that those be included. really, to exclude them, and i know to wait to say we're going to do this down the road, is putting areas like westportal at a distinct economic disadvantage, waiting for two years or a year or two for these to come about while everyone else is having the limited performances makes it very, very difficult for our businesses to compete. i mean, you know, you can go to one place and have it and another area that's very, very close by not have it, it puts us at a real distinct disadvantage. we're sort of a sleepy area, you know, westportal basically now shuts down at 9:00 or 10:00 and this would give us an opportunity to get more people

in, to get younger people in with disposable income and really help westportal stay on the map, so i'd like for you to consider that. president o'brien: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening, commissioners, rob black from the golden globe restaurant association here to represent our nearly 1,000 member locations throughout the city and the bay area. i want to start off with saying how excited we are with the legislation and supportive of the supervisor's efforts and really want to applaud that because he's shown great leadership in an area that really will make a big difference for local businesses, and for residents, quite frankly. this will enhance the experience of going out, it will make our neighborhoods more vibrant, more exciting, and the dining experience more exciting, so we're very supportive of that. the only comment that i would make is reiterating what was

said by the previous speaker, we would urge that this be citywide. we think there are many businesses, whether westportal or south of market, that would really benefit from this activity. as we were discussing -- as the commission was discussing, this is a tourist-driven town in many ways as far as economic activities. we had 16 million tourists come to san francisco last year. 50% of those tourists said they came to san francisco, the number one reason was to eat. that's eight million people coming here to eat. that's fantastic, but it underscores the importance of the industry we're talking about and making it more exciting especially around that convention area, as well, in the south of market, a more pleasurable dining experience, coffee experience with brunch, that's great for the city. it means they come back. it means they spend more money next time so we would encourage you and encourage the supervisor to expand the scope but really applaud his leadership and continue to support the legislation. thank you. president o'brien: thank you. any further public comment?

sorry, i can't -- seeing none, we can take an action item on this, right? can we have a motion from one of my fellow commissioners? >> i motion to approve this ordinance but i'd like to motion that we approve it citywide including the south of market and westportal and pacific avenue. >> make that a recommendation? >> approving it, recommending that we also include the south of market, westportal and pacific avenue n.c.d.'s. >> can we also incorporate the 11:00 p.m.? >> yes, at 11:00. >> i second. president o'brien: o.k. do we need to read it out, chris? or just take a count? secretary: read it out. >> point of clarification.

is the modification for the 11:00 p.m., then, to extend the 10:00 p.m. time to 11:00 p.m. and then but not include the additional hours up to 12 p.m.? president o'brien: yes. all those in favor, i guess. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. president o'brien: any no's? motion is approved. secretary: commissioners, you are on item no. 7. briefly, item no. 2, presentation of the small business commission certificate of honor recognizing a local small business, mac, as part of s.b.c.'s small business recognition program.

>> it's my pleasure to give this award this evening to an outstanding small business, mac, or otherwise known as modern appealing clothing. not only are they just an amazing paragon of a successful small business but they are also really pioneers who go out of their way to promote underused neighborhoods. they, being such a successful business, have, over the years, made themselves relocate to underserved, less busy areas, and have helped to just make all the boats rise in that area because they, themselves, are such an outstanding business.

so without further ado, you want to come up? let me read our proclamation. on this monday, june 13, 2011, the small business commission is proud to acknowledge the contribution that the auspatell family and modern appealing clothe has made to the community of san francisco. mac has been a vibrant part of san francisco's family of locally owned retailers since 1980. mac is recognized by the s.b.c. as also being a retailer that supports and promotes local designers and in their new location, 50% of the goods in

the yellow building will be made in san francisco. the auspatell family is active in the community, serving on the board of directors of paws and the creative growth center. mac and the auspa. family demonstrate the growth factor that small businesses provide to san francisco. [applause] >> thank you so much. and on behalf of my family, my mom, gerry, my sister, chris, we thank the commission for this recognition and only feel more invigorated to do more business and create more businesses in san francisco. thank you. >> can i add a couple of quick words, please? i want to thank you and acknowledge other small businesses that take risks and open businesses where others don't exist such as, the store

on post street, when there was no stores in that area and your store popped up and really invigorated a lot of small micro businesses in that area and you've done the same thing with grant and also in hayes valley so thank you very much for helping trigger growth and activity in the city. thank you. >> we love our city. so thank you all.

secretary: commissioners, you are on item no. 7, discussion on possible action to make recommendations on board of supervisors on board of supervisors file no. 110546, administrative code, healthcare security ordinance. president o'brien: o.k. we have a number of presenters tonight beginning, of course, with supervisor campos.

welcome. supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president, and i want to thank the members of the small business commission for giving me the opportunity to be here today. i'm very proud to speak to you about this piece of legislation and before i begin, let me thank my fellow members of the board of supervisors for their co-sponsorship of this legislation, board president david chiu, supervisor avalos, ross mirkarimi, jane kim, thank you for their sponsorship. we are here today to talk about a very modest piece of legislation that essentially tries to make sure that in the course of implementing the very ground-breaking universal healthcare legislation that we indeed live up to the original intent and spirit of that legislation. i'm proud to say that i come before you with a full support of the father of universal

healthcare in san francisco, then supervisor, now assembly member tom omyiano because this is a common sensicle piece of legislation that is essentially trying to address an unintended consequence, a loophole that was unintended to be there when healthy san francisco was first enacted. for members of the public who are watching and members of the audience, to remind you a little bit about what the ground-breaking piece of legislation that was introduced did, it required that employers who have more than 20 employees and those that have 20 to 99 employees, essentially, and those who have 100 or more, that they make specific money available so that money can be spent by their employees on their healthcare. i don't need to tell you how, since the years that healthy san francisco has come into being, how we at the city here in san francisco have really

benefited from the national attention that universal healthcare in san francisco has received. we have, indeed, become a model for the rest of the country in how to address this very complicated issue of healthcare. during the debate around national healthcare reform in the white house itself, san francisco was looked upon as a model of how to do this right. having been a legislator for 2 1/2 years and having represented as an attorney the board of education, i can tell you that legislation sometimes has unintended consequences and needs tweaking from time to time and that's the tweaking we're doing today. we are here to address a loophole that essentially allows employees to meet their obligations under healthy san francisco through the use of what i call health reimbursement

accounts. these are accounts that are use-it-or-lose it account. the money required to be spent by law is put into these accounts with the idea that somehow eventually that money will be spent on the healthcare provided to that employee. and i have here and i want to share with you copies of receipts that, from restaurants, from all over the city, where you have, in this case, restaurants meeting their obligations under healthy san francisco by actually adding to the bill that's given to the consumer an item that reads, depending on the restaurant, in this case, it reads, as a benefits offset. in another restaurant it says, let's see here, healthy sf. so many of us probably if we've gone to a restaurant in the last couple of years, we have, when we get the bill, seen this item

added to our bill. the reality is, and the very close study that we did of this item, is that that money that goes into these accounts and we're talking about $62 million, 80% of that money, in fact, is not spent on the employee. it is, in fact, reimbursed back to the employer. so we are here to close that loophole because as supervisor, now assembly member omiany will tell you, the whole intent of healthy san francisco was to provide that healthcare to the employees that were supposed to be covered by healthy san francisco. let me share with you text from the original legislation that talks about the original intent of that ordinance and i quote -- "all san francisco residents should have quality, affordable healthcare. currently approximately 82,000 adult san francisco residents

are uninsured even though more than half of those individuals are employed. san francisco taxpayers bear the cost of paying for emergency room visits and other unnecessarily expensive healthcare for the uninsured. by establishing a health access program for uninsured san francisco residents with an emphasis on preventive care and by requiring businesses to make reasonable healthcare expenditures on behalf of their employees depending on the business' ability to pay, the burden on san francisco taxpayers for providing healthcare for the uninsured can be reduced," and i end the quote from the text of the original legislation. there are four reasons why we are here today. one, we are here for the same reason that healthy san francisco was passed, to protect workers, and you're going to hear later on today from at least two workers who have been courageous enough to actually come before this commission and actually come all

the way to city hall not withstanding fear of retaliation to explain to you why these accounts make it difficult for workers to in fact use the money that is being allocated into these accounts. the way that these accounts work is that there are incentives that the individuals who use these accounts have that make it very difficult for the employee to actually benefit from the account, so it is thus not surprising that the account, that the money that is being allocated into these accounts, only 20% of that money actually as it stands today is being used for the healthcare of those employees. the second reason we're here, though, is not just about the workers. it's also about the small businesses and i am proud to say and i believe this wholeheartedly that this is a pro-business legislation that tries to level the playing field by recognizing that the great majority of businesses in san francisco are in fact complying with the spirit and

the letter of healthy san francisco. in fact, the numbers bear that out. 87% of all businesses, in fact, that comply with their obligations under the law, do not use these accounts. we're talking about a very small percentage, essentially one out of 10 businesses, that are using these accounts. move businesses in fact are following the rules as they were intended and are providing healthcare to their employees. now, this individual could not be here today but i want to quote a statement that was made by one of your constituents, a small business owner here in the city and county of san francisco, the owner of zasy restaurant who said the following -- "this legislation levels the playing field for the vast majority of businesses in san francisco that provide health insurance to our employees. a loophole should not disadvantage those of white house agree with the spirit of the healthcare security

ordinance and who believe that employers should contribute to the wellbeing of our employees." i am here as a supervisor who believes that all businesses should play by the same rules and that to the extent that businesses are taking advantage of a loophole, that is an advantage that is hurting other businesses, the vast majority of which are actually doing what they're supposed to. but there is a third reason that we're here and that's to protect the consumer. i have heard repeatedly as a supervisor from a number of my constituents who point out as i indicated earlier in my presentation that they do have that idea added to their bill and the expectation and sometimes when they say that, some are o.k. and happy to pay that, others are not. but the expectation in every single instance that i have spoken to on the part of that consumer is that this money that line item that is included in the bill will in fact be used for the purpose of providing

healthcare to the employee and will not revert back to the employer. in fact, i think if you ask consumers in san francisco, they will be not only surprised but, in fact, shocked to hear that 80% of the money that goes into these accounts in fact is money that is not expended on behalf of the employee. this is a pro-consumer piece of legislation that tries to make sure that when a business tells consumers that we're going to spend money a certain way and in fact charges that consumer for that amount, that that money should be spent the way in which that promise is made to the consumer. there's a final reason why we're here, and it's, quite frankly, one of the primary reasons why healthy san francisco was passed. we are here to protect the san francisco taxpayer. something happens to that employee who is not provided healthcare or access to healthcare. that person, that individual who is working hard, somehow their health needs have to be addressed and what ends up happening is that if those needs

are not addressed by the employer as the law requires, those needsville to be addressed by the city and county of san francisco. that means they will have to be met by the san francisco text pair. that's one of the main reasons why healthy san francisco was enacted and passed because we want to make sure that burden is not unduly placed on the taxpayer here in san francisco. that's why this is also a pro taxpayer piece of legislation that has the very modest effect of simply having the original intent of the law followed. that's why we're here. so, i can go on and on and on about this legislation, i want to end my presentation here. we have a couple of other folks here to present on the piece of legislation. i can either take your questions now or wait until the other individuals present, however you would like to, mr. president.

president o'brien: i'll leave it up to you. i think it would be more effective to hear all of them. supervisor campos: why don't i call upon matt goldberg from the office of labor standards and enforcement. i want to thank them for their objective and unbiased assistance in providing information and facts which is critical when you're drafting a legislation as complicated as this one. so, mr. goldberg. president o'brien: if anyone has any cell phones, if you came late and missed the announcement, please switch them off or put them on vibrate mode. it's not fair to the presenters to have that distraction during the presentation. thank you. >> good evening, mr. president, fellow commissioners. i appreciate the opportunity to share thoughts and perspectives here tonight. as mr. campos said, i am matt goldberg with the office of