document states whether the employer will conduct a criminal baugsd. >> yeah, we left it a little bit there should be some fester active discolor for people who have a conviction we left it broad because the city for example, has a 3 page disclosure how they will and consider it and a test and that's unreasonable for most people applications. so it's broad in terms of what the requirement is and we want to provide flexibility for how people want to deal with the issue and that will be something we'll have a series of recommendations for the informed language everyone can use >> commissioner dooley. >> you mentioned other cities have already conducted this type of location what's the report

back and how its working. >> it's pretty new second amendment hadn't started implementing it they're in the implementation phase. it's been implemented i want to say in buffalo and newark. they're trying to get the changes we've adding a tracking provision so we'll have, you know, at the end of every year the sense of types of complaint and the resolution so the reality is we'll probably not knows what tweaks we need to make a whether or not it's the type of complaint or a specific industry so it tracking of complainant will really, really

help >> commissioner white. >> hi. one other question did i hear that the forward mragsdz need to removal the question. - and so small businesses don't normally have the resources to run criminal checks are they i guess could they be liable for, you know, if they didn't do a criminal check and is for example, if someone was a sex offered who was hired or the employer - what kind of protection if something happens in the workplace >> if you're not using background checks this didn't apply to you. this is really looking at people who are using the commercial background check or some type of

formal questionnaire. it didn't make a difference whether or not i choose to do a background check it up to you if you're not doing it it doesn't increase our liability >> commissioner dwight. >> so as a vice president brandon who doesn't do background checks and they're only experience is from someone an employee stealing from the company i don't find anything objectionable about this legislation. are there any particular objections that have been expressed from small businesses. >> we had a small business r0u7bd table a number of months ago and the concerns are larger

on the large employer side rather than the small business side because the small business owners are not engaging in background checks. the complaints are issues after private right of action and feeling uncomfortable with the liability and as an enforcing agency for the hiring decision of an employer which is why it's not the case. the employer questionnaire it seems cumbersome why they specific the problems early on. most of the concerns we've largely and the through the process. i know have presented it to the executive director of the

association and the vast majority who do background checks have complied with a process similar to this. i think that larger companies are taking the guidance seriously >> thank you. any other commissioner comments. okay open this up for public comment is there anybody from the any public comment? >> i have one speaker card from the do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i chamber of commerce. >> good afternoon. i'm dee dee workingman pr the board of directors voted for having this ordinance we're the only chamber of commerce that has taken this position we want to thank supervisor cowen for helping us

with this and help draft the ordinance. we were able to get input both on larger companies. we're comfortable with the language and the intent of the ordinance. our interests primary were were to get qualified applicants into the jobs and enable the position to be filled. we didn't want this to be cumbersome that you set people up to fail all along the process to be hired and there is something that makes them unsuitable weighing we've advocated this early so it will happen after the first interview and we're graltd about that. everybody we worked with all the companies and biz businesses were clear they were

comfortable. many don't have this provision on their application but this was a given the box would come off. we didn't want o l s c to be second guessing the decisions that the employers make whether or not the civil action was an issue. it was the timing that the employer can you couldn't ask or inquire into the job history. we really want to thank the supervisors and their staff for working with us. it was a unsatisfactory process and we're happy about the outcome and the chamber of commerce >> thank you. any other members of the public?

>> welcome. thank you. my name is roxanne and i - >> excuse me. cue speak into the microphone. >> my name is recognizing an and i work for the treasure island homeless initiative. we're very pleased as well that the supervisors and the entire city and employers have begun along with the ban of the box. our population that we serve is persons that are disadvantaged economically but they're the person who have the barriers to employment. our constituents are the people who have a criminal record from the 80's or 90s that have to do with marijuana but we have a lot of people who have a criminal

background and we want to let you know we're gravity we really are hopeful this will help a lot of our clients that have a difficult time getting a job because of the box and early criminal records. when they do why get a job the majority of them don't go back into criminal problems some have horrifies of alcohol abuse or wla whatever. it is they stay clean and sober when they have a job. this legislation will help them get a job and help them to stay

taxpayers. we're grateful your heard us. great any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. i'm supportive of the intent of the legislation and it's been thoroughly vetted and the community has been involved and any major concerns are addressed i move we support this amendment >> second. >> i'd like also like to thank into supervisor cowen and supervisor kim for your outreach. you reached it out to the champ and talked to several of the organizations in the city and it's been over a year. so this is a great example on outreach and coming to a

conclusion that everybody agreed on. commission - commissioner white >> sorry. i'd like to second with commissioner president adams said i participate in that outreach with supervisor cowen and supervisor kim you guys did a great job. many my business we work a lot with the reentry programs with the skills >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. you want to say one thing as amended in my committee what i have before you in your binder doesn't include the issues in today's amendments so this will be presented inland use. so you want to take a roll call

vote >> commissioner president adams. councilmember olson. 1k34g9. commissioner riley. commissioner white. the motion passes 5 votes >> thank you. next item, please. >> that brings us to item 6 for recommendations inform the board of supervisors on board of supervisors file number 131 for the police code for employees even if parking garage and parking lot councilmember price we have supervisor weiner who is here to address the commission on this legislation. >> welcome supervisor and thank you for coming here. >> thank you, commissioners and today is the box day for me, i stepped out of the land use committee and i'll joined by

power one of my legislation aids. thank you, supervisors so far hearing that. the legislation is basic and straightforward and is to help us with the private parking destroy how to operates in san francisco. that this is before information not creating owner reduce things for the parking regular lotteries. this is not to tar the industry most people comply with the law and are meticulous and provide an important service to san francisco visitors. there are some minority of parking operators who have not also acted responsibly or in the law and that's an ongoing topic

for a few decades now. when you have operators that are not complying with the law that puts the good operators another an competitive disengage. a year ago recognizing the parking lot it has a heightened project the board of supervisors passed a legislation to require a police department permit to better insure the public safety is there. the board recognized the special and unique states of this industry. the legislation that i have proposed and is before you today builds on the recognition and helps the city to perspire itself. we want to have a level playing

field with the employers and the employees are being take into account. currently the parking lot operators are required to get an annual permit from the police department. they're required to submit a fair amount of information including prove they've performed background checks on their employees and an existing permanent process so their reported to the police department annually. those operators are reporting on an annual basis about background and so forth. we're building on new requirements. the legislation i've supported will further require the operators provide some aggregated data on their

employees. the legislation will be presented in the aggregate and there's 3 pieces of organization about tenure and demographics and primary residence and it addresses a few issues. in terms of tenure theirs operators where there is significant turnover of employees and that occurs in order to prevent employees from climbing up the wage scale so you have employees that x when they get too high e high-up on the wage scale they get replaced and that's not okay in terms of insuring we want people to move up and get experience and earn

more money. in terms of demographics. there are some concerns just about some of the management abuse of the employees and whether what kind of diversity there is in the workforce in terms of gender and in terms of primary residence to we may not be able to place local hire requirements on the private garbage operates it would be helpful in terms of our regulation of the industry to know whether the local residents are being hired. this information all of it will help us better understand how those businesses operate and provide additional tools to help us prioritize enforcement.

i will say in addition to the ordinance i've asked our budget and legislative he analyst to put together a report going beyond what i'm paroling e proposing around labor rules and enforcement of the minimum wage and collecting the parking fees so we can be fully committee that the rules are being addressed and in with the san francisco full board of supervisors. i'll ask for your support if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them and if i can't mr. powers will >> any commissioner questions. >> commissioner dwight. >> on what basis was the

parking sector 1i7b8d out. >> the parking in this industry there are a lot legislation that dealings deals with the industries that we know the parking destroy and most of the operators comply with the law but there's been a certain portion of parking lot operator that have been a fly-by night not complying with the rules and there's a demonstrated history of the minority parking lot operators ignoring city rules. in terms of the most significant issue is for the employees to not go up on the wage scale. we've not heard about other industries >> that's around employment

practices. >> although those practices can spill over into - this is about parking lot operators that are meeting the need of san francisco we require they have a permit and they're much more regulated than other businesses in the city. when we do the legislation if you recall to simplify the parking tax for the small apartment owners when we learned about or the amount of regulations around the parking tax and revenue deprives this industry has to go through it k30ird and there's a reason it's a unique industry.

this will allow a small amount of the information above and beyond they're already reporting. it doesn't create any new overall requirements just more information in addition to what they're already giving us on a annual basis commissioner dooley >> how much time will this ad to the recordkeeping. >> i don't think it will adventure. in terms of tenure, you know, anyone who has a payroll system you can easily run reports on terminate shuns so that's not difficult at all. demographics the same thing and primary residents it's the zip code i hope they have that for

each and every employee. so i don't see this is as or in reduce >> commissioner riley. >> we heard this at the committee meeting we asked how side this information about gender and zip code what are you going to do with that information? >> it's information that will be reported and will be public. again, it's all aggregated. people can do with it what they will and that - that's what it will do so it's not any kind of magic information. it will be in the aggregate not

transcribed to my individual. are they hiring san franciscans. we can't mandate it it will allow us to know is this particular operator having an average tenure of 10 months as opposed to the other 6 years. that will be useful information for us to know about those operators >> commissioner white. >> so this is only related to private parking garages. >> right. >> are the public parking garages doing this. >> the mta has contracted with anyone who operates animate mat garage. i don't know that they have - titus it's a case by case

business we've been in touch with the mta they don't need legislation to do this. the mta has informed us their fine with those requirements so withhold for them to do it for their operates. the other thing inform keep in mind you have a public agency and employees who's job is to monitor those contracts and operators. private operators you don't have that same level of day to day scrutiny. commissioner dwight >> has there been any objections. >> we've provided information to one of the jar parking lot and offered to meet with them.

they ended up not following up with us. i interpreted that as perhaps you know it's not a big deal. i offered to meet with them and he suspect they would have been here today. they economy about it we e-mailed them >> commissioner white. >> what are the pregnancy of the private parking lots we're talking about in the city. >> i don't know what the percentage is. the private parking lots run the impact bit there are some small ones and there are the larger ones i don't know wasn't the breakdown is >> andrea the vast majorities of parking lot operations are private. i don't know the exact number

there are a number of you can count on your hands >> okay. so with the competition we're talking about is it private versus private majority >> yeah. >> okay. >> i think this is the case. in the public endangers those are lower parking rates. you know, as soon as you drive into the public square there's a less of an issue because of the price dlaefrl >> any other commissioner comments. okay. any members of the public who want to make xhmgz >> mr. president, i have one speaker card from the local 665.

>> welcome. >> good afternoon, commissioners. march i'm the executive officer of temperatures in san francisco. we have 15 members that are in the parking industry. some numbers i've aware of and representing our numbers there's 15 hundred members working in downtown san francisco in large office building like class a and b and hotels and the sfmta garages. those parking garages are about 5 hundred or so people working in the industry including a number who won't be in a labor managerial positions but a small percentage of workers that are

known as the underground economy that are not being paid with all the restrictions that are required of an employer playing by the rules. it's unfortunate and frustrating. we've been to law enforcement agencies both to the federal and local agency and gotten little relief. there are 15 hundred workers that are working for cash. it's our belief that by putting more keys in the police code there will be a today is initiative. the exploitation of folks don't notice this.

but we have evidence of workers who don't even have california driver's license that are moving cars on san francisco streets. their undocumented. indeed i would say we're looking at the legislation as it pertains to gender and zip code there's a phenomenal i not for screen 4 negligent employers will only hire people of one negligent group so they're in the underground economy. we're hoping this legislation that supervisor weiner is sponsoring will put an end to something that is unfair to the vast majority of parking operators playing by the rules >> thank you very much any other members of the public who want to make comment.

seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner dwight >> so for the operator that are let's call them instruck up lose what prevents them from lying on it does not. how do you go about enforcing this some that number that didn't raise a red flag >> any regulatory regime that i can list a hundred of them in san francisco including taxes people can also try to cheated and provide inaccurate information we have the power to audit. you know, that's a possibility as well. i know that the treasure tax collector over the years has done with starting with susan to really try toe