>> 2013 meeting, the time is now 5:40 p.m., and the meeting is being called to order. first item is roll call. >> before we call order, would i like ask members of the public to turn off all cell phones and pagers. and please sign in at the front table if you would like to be added to the mailing list. public comment will be taken on each item and speaker cards are

available at the front table. if you fill out a card and you can leave it at the front and i will retrieve them. we would like to thank sfgov tv and city hall media services for the constant support of our meetings. >> adams? >> here. >> dooley? >> here. >> commissioner dwight? >> here. >> commissioner o'brien. >> here. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> here. >> commissioner cartagena? >> here. >> commissioner riley? >> here. >> commissioners that brings you to item number two, public comment? >> do we have any members of the public who would like to make comment on any item that is not on today's agenda? >> seeing none, public comment is closed, next item. >> the general public comment, sir? >> okay. >> general public comment will

be limited to three minutes. >> if you can please state your name clearly. >> sure. >> good afternoon, my name is (inaudible), and i'm the resident of (inaudible) association. and i was hoping that when i come back to your meeting, that it would be for the purpose of (inaudible) lombard street, (inaudible) and i have to speak on behalf of (inaudible) about the confusion, the confusion of the published agenda item number two and three. it is totally confusing whether the commission is discussing whether or not to continue item number three, or whether we take action today? >> sir? >> i have to interrupt you. that is item number three and this is on public comment on any items that are not on today's agenda. >> so it will have to wait until three is called. >> okay. >> thank you. >> any other members of the public that would like to make

comment on any item that is not on tonight's agenda? >> okay, public comment is closed. next item three? >> commissioners, the next item is proposed for continuance, the commissioner will continue a request for a continuance to a later date, the commission may choose to continue the item to the date below and to continue it to another date or hear the item on this calendar. item three, presentation and possible action regarding the potential impact of the proposed pet food express store at 2460 lombard street on small business pet store retailers, this is a discussion and possible action. and it is proposed for continuance to july 22, 2013. >> and commissioners as stated on the introduction remarks you may choose to continue this item to the date proposed or continue it to another chair or to the call of the chair. >> okay. >> commissioners? >> i would recommend that you take the public comment before taking action.

>> okay. >> commissioner white? >> i would like to request that we have a continuance date outside of july 22nd. >> okay. >> commissioners i would recommend taking public comment, first and then having a discussion. >> and so we have public comment on item number three. for the continuance of the pet food express. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is (inaudible) and i'm the president of the lombard merchant association i was hoping that it would be for the purpose of explaining the status of the street and supplying the neighborhood corridor and unfortunately like the last meeting, i have to speak about the confusion, and once again the confusion of the published agenda two and three it is confusing whether the commission is discussing whether or not to continue item

three or whether it to take action today. it sounds like any action is possible. and please don't forget that i am a small business owner too and the same is true for many of the members of the (inaudible) and i have to come here again for i don't know what the reason. and also, it is not possible for me to notify the lombard street merchant to come on short notice and whether it is unclear and lastly, it is very important to us that the hearing to be continued to allow us an opportunity to give input and in this situation and to question the same impact on small business, if you could please come to lombard street. >> thank you. >> and okay, commissioner, dwight? ? i mean, commissioner white? >> yes, i was just recommending for staff to look into another date, other than july 22nd for this agenda item. >> commissioner dwight? >> i do want to be sure that we

have an opportunity to hear comments at another meeting before the planning commissioner is schedule to look at this. because i have personally done some research on this to educate myself. and i do definitely want to hear from the local merchants. >> second? >> any other comments? >> so, do we know then? the planning commission? >> there is still not a date. >> we need to make it the 22nd or a date that staff finds that we can get everybody together and what is convenient. >> is there any reason why we would not make it the 22nd? >> i think just to make sure that we are most flexible in dealing with the matter that we have on the agenda today, if we do need to... i am not sure what the timing of that is.

so, and it may... you know, it may be staff will take or make sure that we take the best effort in mind to work with the schedule of the commission. and the planning commission. >> okay. >> in scheduling it. >> as long as we consider both the needs of ourselves, planning and the constituents so that they have time to prepare and to get the word out to their folks that they can show up. because i don't want anyone feeling like they got rushed but i do not want to miss the planning commission's schedule on this. >> i would agree. >> okay. >> and you want to make sure that we have... >> i want to be certain that we have weighed in with having heard from the people who are affected by it. and i don't feel that we have heard everything that we need to hear from the constituents. >> well i am going to going to go out on a limb and apologize

to the speaker that just spoke because i think that this agenda was very confusing. and i think that it is unfair that people are trying to pay attention to what is happening with their political representatives and other political members of the community. and that is part of running a business in san francisco. and i think that this was pretty tough to try and be on top of it. i read that and i was a little bit confused, i said am i hearing this or not hearing this, should i be preparing this or not preparing for it so i am going to make that statement to the gentleman that just spoke. and not happy with the way this has evolved from before. and i am concerned about it. and i just needed to make that comment for the record. i hope that what ever decision we make here, will be in good

faith, will be first and foremost to the process of fair hearings, and fair comment from all parties, free of anybody's particular personal feelings about big or small or any other aspects and i will go along with whatever the best decision is as long as we have that in mind. >> commissioner dwight? >> likewise, i want to make it clear that i was not prepared last time and i was not happy about that and i have done the research on my own and researching the neighborhood and walking the neighborhood and i will continue to do the research and that is why i want to hear what the people have to say about this issue before making any decision and i think that it is incumbent upon us to do that. >> commissioner riley? >> why are we not hearing it today? >> because we have the bigger

presentation today. >> can we hear both? >> do you want to be here until midnight? >> once we set the date and i just don't understand it. >> we did not set a date last time. >> we moved it to the 22nd. and i have that to the 22nd. >> through president adams, we did set a date last night which was this meeting but we did not know about the ordinance that we are hearing today at that time. and so once the ordinance was referred to the office, president adams and i consulted about how best to agendaize what was the staff's schedule and the fact that i was going to be away for three weeks prior to this commission meeting. and just what... or how best to manage the responsibility on both staff's plate and the commission's plate, for this meeting. >> okay? >> okay.

>> and that does make sense, i understand that. and i think that was the right decision, this other ordinance is a big deal. and that is probably needed to get this attention. so i am okay with that. and i would love to have some kind of assurance that we get, or as the commissioner dwight indicated to get to weigh in on this before it goes to the planning commission and again i have apologized to the pet food community for what has happened. but hopefully we can give them a timely notice and have this heard before it goes to the planning commission. >> commissioner dwight? >> i would like to make sure that we know who the key people are that we need to contact in the community. like the gentleman who just spoke and any other key representatives so that they know in advance, when and what we are talking about. so that they can come prepared. okay? >> so, if they are unknown to us, however, it is that we make ourselves known to them, please make sure that we know who we

are contacting in the community so that they can get the word out to the community. if it is a merchant association or pdma i know who to get in touch with. make sure that the merchant association and as well as the key constituents know how to be notified. >> a motion and do we have a second? >> the motion was not july 22nd. >> that is correct. >> it was the call of the chair? was that the motion? >> was the motion to the call of the chair? >> yeah, the motion was to continue at a further date that staff felt appropriate based off of making sure that everybody had enough time. >> but before planning. >> right. >> would the director be more appropriate to the call of the chair or okay to be directed to staff? >> and it can be either or. >> okay. >> to the staff, if that is what the commission would like the staff to make that determination?

and the staff can conduct with the chair. >> and the chair which, if i have any advanced notice that is the call of the chair. >> so we don't know yet when planning is going to hear? >> no. >> we don't have a date. >> okay. >> okay. i think that you have commissioner dooley, she seconded it? yeah. >> okay. >> what was the motion? >> do you want to read it back. >> i have the motion made by commissioner white is to direct staff to calendar prior to planning with advanced notice to all interested parties. >> yes. and seconded by commissioner dooley. >> okay. >> on that motion, commissioner adams? >> yes. >> commissioner dooley?

>> yes. >> commissioner dwight? >> yes. >> o'brien. >> yes. >> ortiz-cartagena? >> yes. >> white. >> yes. >> commissioner yee riley? >> yes. >> that motion passes 7-0. >> next item? >> commissioners this puts you on the regular calendar, item four, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 1 30622, administrative code, san francisco family friendly workplace ordinance, motion ordering submitted to the voters in the ordinance amending to the administrative code to allow san francisco based employees who are care givers to request the flexible work arrangements subject to the employer's right to deny a request based on specific undue hardship, require that the employers give advance noticed of changing in the employee's work schedule, prohibt adverse employment actions based on

care given status, prohibt interfer ans with the rights or retaliation against the employees for exercising rights under the ordinance, require employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the ordinance, require the employers to maintain records regarding with the compliance with the ordinance and authority enforcement by the office of the labor standard enforement including the imposition of the remedies and penalties for a violation and an appeal process independent hearing officer, authority waiver of the provisions of the ordinance in a collision bargaining agreement, and making environmental findings to the voters of the san francisco at an election to be held on november 5, 2013. >> welcome supervisor, and president chiu. >> thank you, and good afternoon, thank you commissioners. and as a former member of the small business commission and as a former founder of the small business, i want to just thank you for your service, and for your consideration of all matters related to our small

business community. and i also want to thank the members of the public who have taken the time out to talk about our proposed family-friendly workplace ordinance. let me first start off by saying that i was a little surprised at the attention that the ordinance received. and i think that the policy that we are proposing is quite modest and with that being said, i want to thank the literally... (inaudible) have had hundreds of conversations over the last couple of weeks and i want to thank many of you as well as leaders in the community who have reached out to my office and thanked them for the feedback and much of which we have incorporated into the draft that you have in front of you. let me take a few moments to talk about the imp itus, behind this and what it does. >> it addresses the challenges for faces working families. p way going up in the 70s, the

typical family as you can imagine was that of a working father, and a stay at home mother, in fact at that time, over half of all families met that description. today, less than 1 out of five families meets that description. and over that same time period, we have seen the number of single parent house holds double. and today, as i think that we all know, is women make-up half of the workforce, and in fact, out of four out of ten families women are actually the primary bread winner and i think that you know that san francisco families in recent years have been very challenged. and there have been a lot of reasons why san francisco families have seen challenges even though our local san francisco economy has been booming. we have had issues with our schools, we have issued with housing and others. but i have heard, from hundreds of parents, about the challenges that they have in balancing their work and their personal life. and in trying to be both good

employees and good parents. part of these challenge surround to pick up the children from the daycare and bringing the kids to the soccer practice or the doctor's appoints. when we talk about the challenges facing our families we are talking not just about the challenges that the parents have with the kids or the challenges that the individuals have taking care of spouses who may be ill, taking care of folks who are in the sandwich generation who are taking care of their parpts and all of these are challenges that have made life more difficult for the folks who are working and are still trying to provide care giving to these individuals. the proposal that you have in front of you, at its core, i believe, is extremely modest. what it does, is it creates the right of the employee.

we have to create a safe space and the conversation around the possibility that the employee could potentially change a shift or could maybe go and work part time and work part year, and engage in job sharing or any number of what people now understand as short of the 21st century and the working arrangements and now the legislation though, also says that any employer, if they received a request, can deny such a request as long as there is a valid business reason and we defined that. and it could be that there is any increase to the bottom line of a company. it could be that there may not be a shift available. >> customer demand may not be able to be met and there may be not enough work at the time that is requested. and we specifically exempted in the first version of this legislation, any small business that had less than 10 employees. and then, as part of the legislation, we wanted to make sure that if there was retaliation around these and if there is discrimination based on the fact that someone was a care giver, that there be

protects for the employees, and as we do with other local employment and labor ordinances, this is an ordinance that will be enforced by our office of labor standards enforcement. now this idea came to my office, because it has been very successfully carried out in other countries, so it can go to england or ireland or new zealand, the right to request was put into place a number of years ago and it has been extremely successful. and so for example, in britain, in the first year after this law passed, over a million individuals, requested a potentially more flexible working arrangement. nearly all of these requested were granted voluntarily and the experience of the employers have been good. and i will talk about that in a moment. in most of these countries, these countries after the experience of working with the right to request for care givers, the experience was so positive, and that a number of these countrie