>> good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors land use and economic development committee i'm scott wiener the chairman and supervisor chu and supervisor kim will be joining us shortly.

i said to thank sf and our clerk is les miller >> please make sure to silence all sdpiez and the documents are to be included in the file should be submitted to the clerk and the agenda will appear on the item. >> item one is is an ordinance to eliminate a sidewalk for the renovation of glen champion park. >> i'm the sponsor of the park of the oak grand canyon and we have karen to speak about the item and a good afternoon, supervisors this is an ordinance to amend the everybody else street sidewalk to allow for a

new improvement. i have something to present on the overhead. just to show you a little bit of the current condition right now previous to starting construction it's difficult to enter the park so the new design for a new drop off zone >> so this is the new plan for the renovation we have the tennis court and mragdz from construction. in the the new sidewalk inside the park. and a new plaza and entryway that is easier for folks to enter. this is one of the top chosen items for the renovation it started in 2010. and i have - i can answer any questions if you have them.

thank you >> great thank you. seeing no questions we'll open it up for public comment. any public comment on item one seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues could i have a motion to move this forward. 3 will be the order >> madam clerk call item 2. >> this is to establish the parcels that share the additional waters uses and setting fees. >> thank you, mr. chair first of all, i want to thank colleagues for adapting the non-water ordinance. and the ordinance is a volunteer program that steels the process

for buildings to collect and treat and use the alternate water resources. san francisco a has been a leeds conservatism plan and it helps diverse our water system. this time our water can be rekieblgdz and implementation of on site use for water may reduce the bill considerably. this have the potential to save 6 million gallows of water. now since this has been adopted there's interest from the city departments to encourage others. the legislation and i thank supervisor mar helped to expand this to cover two or more water

sources and ploys a fee to help cover the staff time for additional site inspections. because of the cost the program has been focused on new water for office guess so. the puc has increased the grant assistance to provide up to a half of million dollars for implementing on site water use. those must offset the gallons of water every year. this legislation is to help to amend the water resources that are sharing the non potential water uses in order to include the district projects. we have some city staff i'd like to invite up from the puc

>> thank you for sponsoring this legislation and thank you to the building inspection who have long been partners. supervisor did a wonderful job in smooir what this ordinance it about but there are two main resources one is including the definition of the district call and the second is if we're to move forward with the project that's the role of the department of the public works to help with the water services so far the public right-of-way. happy to answer any questions you might have. >> colleagues any questions? i'd like to acknowledge from the department of public health department i want to thank other

departments. my other comments >> good afternoon i've been working quite sometime on this project and feel great to have long been working with the department staff as with he move forward this to have the water for on site uses. the amendment will expand the coverage of the program to include projects that crows boundaries and hopefully with this we'll have more choices for where they're using their portable waters uses. this is a remarkable example of how it meets so many diverse

goals and i'm looking forward to working with all the departments >> thank you very much. okay colleagues if there's no comments or questions. any comment on item 2. come forward >> and public comment will be two minutes. >> thank you. i'm laura i work at spur. we supported the one site potential program last year this saves around 6 million gallons of our water every year. we're happy to support this. since last year when the on site program began we did a study for the long-term and concluded that more recycling and making better

use of the water from the san francisco bay are important for the region in the future. we also participated in the echo department scale. and non-potential water sharing across the property lines would create a permanent process was highlighted in the task force it's a key opportunity for a neighborhood with a high water table and the future growth in open office space. so again, we strongly support this expansion of opportunities to the district scale. we know this can save 20 to 60 percent of water in office buildings. and this is an overall

recommendation of water sources that are being wasted >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm brooke i'm a senior project manager with public works. i'm here to support this legislation. i've worked with the doctor on the have meant of the puc building and strongly support this legislation i've current managing the moscone building where 20 million gallons of water are being dumped into the streets and we're looking to use and provide irrigation water for the bonding in a gardens

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon i'm the charles i'm with the engineers. i said to thank you guys for putting this amendment forward. i want to work in a city that maximi maximizes water. >> any additional comment on item 2. seeing none, public comment is closed. president chu pr >> i want to thank the puc and spur and other partners for their work on this and colleagues ask for this to be moved out with full recommendation. >> great can we take that without objection? madam clerk call item 3 >> item 3 is the microscopic

code to allow employees for care giving time to allow far their families. >> first of all, i want to thank you and the rest of our colleagues for their consideration of the presidential around our family friendly with that. we hear from the staff i thought for this particular committee we'll take a couple of minutes to lay out the proposal and i'd like to act my aid to activate the power point. i want to thank our 5 colleagues who have co- sponsored this campos, yee and breed.

this is to address the numerous issues of that impacted our with that. this used to be the families of the in the under the circumstances. united states. this is leave it to beaver and this family structure has changed. here's another typical demonstration of families. we know in one generation there's been changes like divorce and the single-family households have doubled. it's been extremely he difficult for families to juggle work situations. and women are entering the workplace and they make up half

of the employees in the american workforce. 40 percent of women are the primary breadwinners in their families. two parents are working and the care giving is juggled. over the past few decades over one generation you're seeing a complete change. this graph shows from the 1950s this only represents one family structure today. so for the caregiver in 2013 this means that typically a parents is juggling daycare and doctor appointments and work life balance is impossible for caregivers. 90 percent of caregivers increase our skroi country

experience a lot of difficulties. and i'd like to ask my staff to look around the country in the world to address this. we found a modest proposal. the idea we were able to look at it from other countries. involves the right for request for an employee to ask for a flexible working arrangement. and this right establishes the opportunity for safe space for a conversation and negotiation around flexible working arrangements like proposal to go parliament or to job share or to tell communicate. the right to request involves 3 steps first a request by an

plaintiff's 3 employee and the employers to grant or deny the request and if it's denied they can talk about the request. now this slide depicts countries 0 like australian and england and ireland so in britain in the first year there was he over a million employees that requested a right to ask for a flexible work arrangement. it was a very, very successful policy and has been constant in those countries not only to employees who are caregivers but other. why has this worked so well in overseas why isn't it here. as a matter of fact, it is. all of those individuals from our united states senate

recognize this a former inasfar from massachusetts senator ted kennedy two helped to sponsor this bill. of course, everyone will recognize our president who in 2010 helped a white house assistants and you'll recognize hillary clinton as she stepped down she talked about the importance of those issues. the person in the button right are corner is senator bob casey who reintroduced the legislation. now earlier this year national and state advocates asked my office to implement the right to request but vermont beat us. earlier this summer they became the first in the country to pass the legislation.

i want to make sure that san francisco is the first city i in the country to build on this idea. in the an idea that's been good for business and employers. i you know from my own exercises i had a lot of employees in their 20s and 30s. we decisions to error on the side of over and over be flexibility. we found that over and over this we see an increase in job satisfaction and employee loyalty and productivity and we saw a decrease in turnover. in fact, over the years the positive bottom line impact for flexible working arrangements. we saw that care giving

absentism led to $7 billion a year and caregiver led more. in 2009 it was estimated there were 20 million working for unpaid caregivers and 2010 by not allowing the flexibility to parents it he led over $2 million a year reduction from productivity. i want to thank you ted you'll hear from him about any legislation mr. egging on g did an analysis and let me give the punch like to quote it is therefore highly likely that this legislation will exceed its

cost over benefits. now let's talk about the legislation we have in front of us. who is eligible to be eligible you have to be physically employed within san francisco and working for an employer who has more than 20 employees and you need to be an marie marie employee that works 8 hours a week. this impacts the largest 4 thousand businesses in our city. it's limited to two requests a year to require families who have kids in school to adopt to a summer schedule or a major event like a new child. who gets to ask for the opportunity to ask for caregiver needs. not only parents who have routine obligations around their children and i want to thank the

business community we wanted to make sure that parents could take care of their domestic partners and shouz spouses and a parents. we know there are many, many deputies in san francisco who are taking care of their parents and other sick relatives as well as children. so the employee may request changes within the time to work and location and predictability in schedule. an employer would accept or deny the request a denial has to be based on a bona fide reason the fact that other employees can't handle the work or there's not in enough work during business hours. there's a requirement for a

meeting and there's a requirement that an employer not retaliate against the employee. like all of our local laws this legislation would be enforced by the standard of law enforcement but there's no right to appeal in the legislation. the o i would look at claims of discretion and there would be a penalty if there was violations. during the legislation process i want to thank the members of the public who have given feedback. we've made changes around making sure we tighten up exactly what osc could review. we decided to change exactly who has an employer and an employee

this would apply to meet the health care security standard and we expanded this to allow for elderly care in addition to their kids. we got a lot of feedback there was a desire to move this not through the ballot and if we did that we'd be in a campaign but it's our hope we can move this out of committee today. i want to thank mayor lee for the support. there is one amendment i'd like to mention and we know do this at the appropriate time there was suggestions from city government as well as business partners we do more outreach as this legislation is implemented and i'll read some lounge into the record.

one last thing i want to mention is i want to address a question that has arise about some employers in san francisco who said their engaged in those activities. i'll provide my appreciation to those san francisco and national employers who are already offering flexible work are arrangements. those folks need to be recognized. and, in fact, a few weeks ago there was a couple of private sectors employers who were doing a good job. first, it's important for us to level the playing field if some employers are doing it, it's important that all employers do this. i also want to note there's been a bit of a disconnect between

employers and employees. the employers who say they're offering b it but employees not findings that to be the case. flexibility is given every once in a while to some of the favorite employees at work places. we've heard from men and women in the workplace as flexibility bias. if you ask for it you're a less commented worker but this is to nudge changes. i want to talk a moment and thank my aid katherine who conducted countless meetings and all the advocates for families, for children and for seniors and women and for really our

families and how we take care of all of the facets of the san francisco community. i want to thank the business community for their feedback and all the agencies who worked with argue department from the city attorney to the department of the status of women and osc and as well as the h.r. colleagues unless their any comments or questions we have a number of city staff i'd like to start with the ann lehman or from the department of the status i'm not sure which one of you will be presenting today >> thank