-- the part of my tons. to create a system here where residents can opt in and ask the entertainment commission and the director to be put on notice when an application or permit comes up so they are noticed at the same time that there is physical notice on premise. it will give our neighborhood both on the commercial side and also the neighbors advance notice of this before it comes up-the entertainment commission. it is to make sure people are not surprised by these permits going forward. i want to thank sheryl for working hard on this. i would ask for your support on this as well. >> supervisor farrell has made a motion, seconded by supervisor chiu. can we take that motion to amend without objection? that is the order.

supervisor wiener? >> i want to also thank supervisor mirkarimi. this is a great idea and very important to keep beating the drum about how the entertainment commission needs more resources. one of the things that kept coming up during this process is some people don't have comments necessarily has the resources to enforce the ordinance. i think the economy recently has taken it up a notch, and i think it can be enforce it, but i think it needs more resources in the future. i am going to keep pursuing that in future budget cycles. >> thank you. supervisor, mirkarimi? >> again, thank you to all of you colleagues. i think your amendments are fine. i wanted to sculpt the

legislation over a period of time so that it is sensitive to each district. thank you for the way it has been built. i get that there need to be some sort oflele -- of tayloring around district. we have retained the rules and regulations as they would apply to larger venues. in terms of neighborhood concerns, public health, noise coal and everything that has caught our attention. over the years past, those protocols to remain in place, but we don't want those protocols to be so oppressive that we can't innovate something new and different. i hope that is what we are departing from here today. >> thank you, supervisor, mirkarimi. can we have a rl roll call.

mirkarimi, aye. wiener aye. avalos, ayement campos, aye. chiu, aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. yell, aye. farrell, aye. supervisors kym, aye, mar, aye. there are 11 eyes. >> the ordinance is passed on the first reading. item 12. >> ordinance amending the planning cord modifying planning codes on clement. >> i ask for your support again today. i would like to thank our combs of small businesses and residents from the richmond district. it has been led by amazing owners and workers from b and

b, to cal, to rich and drew's canine corner, like bow wow and me ue, i love saying their names. it is supported by a number of small businesses advocates as well. this will help us fill vacant store fronts by updating the zoning laws in our neighborhood. it also will help us maintain a diverse neighborhood district. so i urge you are your support again today. thank you. >> any discussion? roll call vote. >> mirkarimi, aye. wiener, no. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chiu, aye. chu, no. cohen, aye.

yell, no. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, aye. there are eight ayes and three nos. >> the ordinance is passed. item 13. >> ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuit filed by t-mobile west against the city on july 8, 2010. >> roll call forth. >> mirkarimi, aye. wiener, aye. avalos, no. campos, no. chiu, aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. yeb, aye. farrell, aye. kim, aye. mar, no. there are eight ayes and three nos. >> the ordinance is passed.

mirkarimi excuse me mr. president. motion to recent. i was on side bar. i want to change my yes to a no. supervisor chiu: supervisor has made a motion to rescind seconded by campos. roll call vote against. >> mirkarimi, no, campos, no, >> there are seven ayes and four nos. >> this ordinance is passed. item 14. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to modify the health care security ordinance. supervisor chiu: supervisor campos?

supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president. i would like to, if i may, begin my remarks by asking all the works in the chamber to please stand. if you are a worker and you are in the chamber, if you could please stand? thank you. the reason i wanted to do that is because these individuals are here for this item and also for the item that follows this item, which is wage theft legislation that supervisor mar and myself have co-sponsored, co-authored. this is about protecting the rights and interests of these workers, and protecting the rights and interests of workers includes many things. certainly making sure they get

compensated as the law requires is part of it. but making sure that they also get the health care that we as a city collectively decided a few years ago every worker in san francisco deserved is also a part of protecting the rights of workers. the two are connected. this loophole is something we have talked about for quite sometime. we have had hearings in the small business commission, at the government audits and oversight committee. we had a meeting here, including a closed session. the difficulty with this legislation is that, as we are trying to close a loop hole, which i think even people who have issues with the legislation have yet to hear anyone say that is loophole does not exist. we are challenged by law that limits the jurisdiction to

micro manage the way in which the accounts in question are handled. it is for that reason that, in trying to address this loophole, we have tried to strike the right balance between protecting the rights of these workers, taking into consideration the interests of businesss, the interests of consumers and taxpayers, but doing so in a way that follows federal lay and the guidelines described by the 9th circuit. the fact is the more we try to micromanage how these accounts are managed, the more likely we are to run afoul of srissa. we have in the last few weeks taken the time to meet with a lot of people on this issues. we have met with the golden gate restaurants association,

the chamber of commerce. we have met with business owners. we have met with workers. we have met with taxpayers. we have met with consumers and small business owners. what you have before you is an amendment that i would like to make, and i make a motion to amend the legislation along the signs of the draft before you. let me tell you a little about this amendment. what this amendment does is that it recognizes a concern that has been outline by it business community. there is a problem with the legislation as currently written where you have a requirement that the accounts, the health reimbursement accounts, be managed indefinitely. so this menment takes into consideration that concern. as amended it would place a

time limit. the time after conclusion of employment, 18 months, and if there is no acktiffer during that 18-month period, then the employer or business would no longer be required to maintain that account. and the account, assumings all other things are followed, the account would revert back to the business. we have heard the kesh and are addressing it through that change. i also think it is important that when we as a city establish requirements of the private sector, that we also lead by example, and in the process of looking into this matter, we recognized and realized that healthy san francisco, when the city administers these medical reimbursement accounts, similar accounts to the ones we are talking about, that the city closes it if there is no

activity for an 18-month period. the purpose of this amendment is to align what we are asking of businesses with how the city is approaching this issue. we cannot ask businesses to do more than what we as a city or doing. i think it is important to be consistent, and we heard that comment from businesses, and we want to make sure that about address that. so the amendment that you have before you, in our view, is an amendment that strikes the right balance between the concerns that have been raised and the reamount here is we have a small minority of businesses taking advantage of the loophole. the intent of the order nabs was to provide health care, to make sure that health care was actually available to these workers. the reality is that right now you have a small percentage of businesses that are taking advantage of this loophole.

many of these businesses are asking consumers to pay extra. we saw the copies of all the receipts in many of the restaurants that are asking consumers to pay more, and we know now from the office of labor standards and enforcement that 80% of that money is actually money that is never spent on that worker. this legislation is about protecting that consumer who is being asked to pay something that in fact is not happening. it is also about protecting the businesses, the vast majority of which are actually come applying with the letter and spent of what is happening. we have heard from many businesses that some of them -- from some businesses, even though we are talking about a small percentage that they will suffer, the reality is that this discussion was had, and it

is a discussion that the city government, the board of supervisors and mayor museum -- newsom new it was about the workers. when these workers do not receive the health care intended for them, they have to go somewhere. mean of them end up in emergency rooms that we as tax pairs -- tax pairs are using. we believe that the amendment before you addresses those concerns and ask so in a way that not only closes the loophole, but it makes sure that we do not rupp afoul -- run afoul of federal law. i want to underscore that

point. i identified the number of workers here, but i also see linebackers of the labor council. >> the labor council fought hard to enact the original ordinance. to the extend that the labor council and labor wants a closing of this loophole, it need to be done in a way that does compromise the entire law enacted a few years ago. we want to make it clear that if this board goes to the point of of trying to micromanage those accounts beyond what is proposed, well not support any effort to micromanage the accounts and amend the lou in a way that jeopardizing not only the closing of the loop hole, but also the entire ordinance

as amended. that is not only a message that labor is sending, but from workers, and from the assembly member who was the arthur. the last point i will make is that labor is united on this problem. a number of us have gotten later on this issue. there was a letter that went out to the board of supervisors on behalf of the jobs. the organizations on the letter head of this letter have indicated they do not agree with the position outlined in this letter. those individual have disassociated themselves from thattler. and to the extent that there is any question about the unity of labor behind this legislation, we have a letter from the san

francisco labor council that is signed by a number of the key stit went of the labor movement here in san francisco. the importance of this letter is something that cannot be overemphasized. this is about labor making it clear to this board of supervisors that this is a top legislative priority. and that when it comes to being forehealth care, that shall a -- that this is a key vote. we need to move expeditiously and act today. i would respectfully request the support of my colleagues for this amendment. again, i make a motion to amend. [applause] >> a motion to amend has been made by supervisor campos,

seconded by supermerck. president chiu? supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues. i want to thank everyone in this chamber who has been working on this legislation in recent months. i want to thank supervisor campos for your leadership in pointing out what i do understand also to be a very real problem. i support the concept of this legislation. i do think it is troubling that there are employers who are not paying what others or paying. who are limiting the benefits that their workers could receive. i think the fact that right now we only have 20% usage, we all know that is not acceptable. colleagues, it is important for us that we craft a solution that both protects our workers but doesn't undually punish the

workers. it costs the business community about $42 million. this legislation is estimated to cost the business community around $50 million that will fall on the shoulder of around 700 businesses which will result in the lay offs in hundreds of workers. from my perspective i think there are still unanswered questions about aspects this legislation still needs to address. we need to make sure there is adequate notice requirements. we need to have a better sense of what happens toe end of an employee's time. i appreciate the remeant menments, which i want to think about. but i think the seven-year time frame, particularly given that president obama's health care programs will come into effect in about two years, we need to think of that.

the big con done drum in my mind, is we know it is likely every year anywhere from $25 million to $40 million will likely sit in these h.r.a. accounts, likely untapped. this is money that could be used to hire workers. i am still wondering if there are ways for us to move forward in this path. i you said there have been attempts to bring together business leaders and labor leaders. i would support that, that they sit in a room and try to brainstorm these things. i have been advised by attorneys that the solutions that have been provided that would provide an appropriate balance would be solutions that would be extremely legally defensible. i know that super-- supervisor

amended. i think it is appropriate to continue this item to the next meeting. i make a motion to continue this to september 6. >> president chiu has made a makes to continue it to september 6, seconded by supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener? >> thank you. i will be supporting the motion. we have in recent years been able to enact a number of important pieces of pro worker legislation with very broad support. we passed minimum wage, paid sick leave. at the ballot with broad support, healthy san francisco after a lot of work on both sides went to passing healthy

san francisco. i hope that on which i am working will pass close to unanimously. when we put our minds to it, we can come up with solutions to labor issues and do it in a consensus way that protects workers while not damaging businesses. we keep hearing over and over again that it is a small or tiny percentage of players who are abusing the h.r.a.'s. if that is true, and i believe that it is, we need to address this problem with a scalpel and not with a sledgehammer. we are all hearing -- i know i am -- from many small businesses that are absolutely terrified about what will happen to their businesses if this legislation passes in its current form. we are hearing from labor a

different narrative. we should not be rushing this legislation. we should do it the right way to try to build consensus. i share president chiu's concern about the lack of meaningful communication between labor and the business community. i was not thrilled that this was not pulled out of committee and remaining in committee. it is unfortunate that we are now having to work it out as a full board of supervisors. i under the author's reasoning for doing that, and i support that, but i feel like it is being rushed, and i support the motion to continue. supervisor chiu: supervisor cohen? >> i, too,. am in favor of supporting the continuance. there is a look hole that is being abused, and we must think

thoughtfully and crit -- creatively to closing this loophole. i think the amount of discourse that took place when we were discussing local hire was very thoughtful, and it brought all shareholders to the table. that is the kind of discourse i am looking for. this issue is so important to so many people in all of san francisco. it is not missed on me that we need to spend more time and thoughtful conversation around this issue. i am in favor of a continuance and look forward to working with the partners in this change. supervisor chiu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i want to thank supercampos and his office to bring this here. i think we are all in consensus

in this room that the loop hole that was discovered was not in the original intent of the health care legislation. however, there is obviously varied opinions on the best way to address this. that does not small businesseses or workers. >> i want to speck -- speak on several sngs. we came on a platform to support small businesses. we know that small businesses contribute to 60% to 80% of the job growth here in the city. they are what feeds our jobs here in san francisco. we all want to see this happen. however, when i was running, i also made clear we don't support small businesses at the expense of our workers. . i support our minimum wage as many of you do here, and i supported our healthy san francisco legislation. if we want to make our

businesses mo vative, we have to support other things. one, local purchasing. we have accounts that we have roughly $2,500 a year. the book i get is a staples book. i can't buy from my small neighborhood. if we are talking about narrow profit marnls, that many small businesses go by, because we have health care here in san francisco. we should be buying for our local businesses. this is not one of those areas where i think amendments should be put. this is not the way i want to support or small businesses. people have made a lot about the potential 230 to 460 jobs we may lose over the course of the next year if we pass this

legislation as is. however, i think it is important to think about what these jobs mean. we want to support jobs that have living wage and that have health care here in san francisco. when i think about the potential of losing 1% to 3%, i say those jobs are not worth saving. we want to ensure that people can live with respect and dignity here. that is why i support the legislation as is. i think it is important that we as a board support our small businesses here in san francisco. however, i think there are multiple ways we can do that, not necessarily through this legislation. i just want to add in terms of the continuance, i like having continued discussions. i think it is important that we have compromise because it generally makes for more enclufe legislation and better legislation.

however, i don't see a compromise solutions in this case. i have racked my brain on other ways to come to the middle, and i don't see it. at the end of the day we are talking about a mauricely amount of dollars that won't even cover most routine treatments that we need on a regular base basis. most workers don't collect more than $1,000 a year, and i don't think that covers a lot. we need to think about what we mean by quality jobs here in san francisco that we want to protect. i wanted to talk about how we need the small businesses, but we also need the workers. we want a quality sit -- city, and part of that is protecting this. this amendment by supervisor campos does that.

[applause] supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, president chiu. i am also not supportive of continuing this item into future meetings. i was actually part of the community labor coalition that was supporting the original health care security ordinance back in 2006 through the san francisco people's organization, and i'm very committed to making sure that we can make it as strong as we can with the amendments that supervisor campos is working on today. i want to thank him and also the unity. the unity between community and labor in this room i think is significant. i don't see there has been a pathway towards a common solution here that is being offered. i think what i have heard most of all is that the solutions being offear