>> did that include workers in training? >> the workers in training are a much more constrained population. it will have a separate wage. the separate wage for those two groups of people, they will take the increase on may 1, for $12.25. they won't take the july 17th, july 27, th, they will be indexed to inflation immediately after they take the jump . there will be after government subsidized young workers much narrower. >> commissioner dooley? >> we are of course anticipating to have quite a bit of reaction in the small business world. i wonder what plans do you have for tracking what the results are going to

be during the next 10 -year period? >> thank you for the question, commissioner. it's an important point to track the impact of the policy. the mayor has agreed at the suggestion of the small business community to implement a reporting mechanism about collecting the data and then analyzing it and presenting it in a timely fashion and in a regular fashion. so i can't say that we worked out exactly what the report would look like. we want to collect the kind of data that you think we need to be collecting. the extend that this commission has input on how these reports are structured, we are very interested in structuring the reports the way you would like. things we'll be studying, employment effects sector bisect or. what kind of job loss are we seeing, what kind of deferred growth are

we seeing. given the industry in growth in 10 years how much will it grow and the impact. wage impact on raises are are there other non-monetary benefits limited by the minimum wage increase. we are doing a robust data gathering exercise in helping this commission crafting the way we ask questions and the way we aggregate the data and we are very open and eager to get suggestions from this commission. >> great. any other commissioner questions? commissioner reilly? >> hi. i know some of the -- crops they charge the meal. that money does not go to the servers. if we want to tip in addition to that, then that

goes to the server. so, is that legal? can they do that? >> commissioner, i'm not equipped to answer the question about the legality of various service charges. sorry. i don't have that expertise. >> i'm just wondering if that's an option to charge the charge to cover the higher minimum wages. >> when we administered the ordinance back in 2011 we passed laws that if a restaurant specifically or anyone puts a service charge on a bill for healthy san francisco and says as such on a receipt that there are certain resumes -- rules how that would apply, that certain rules would apply around a minimum wage. quite frankly

we have not discussed the legality of that with restaurant owners. it's an interesting thought, thank you. >> any other comments before we go into public comment? okay. let's open this up right now. don't go away. we probably have more questions. i would like to open this up for public comment. do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on item no. 4? welcome. >> thank you, again. scott houkey insurance. we were disappointed that the commission's recommendation study was not included in the final outcome of the ballot measure, but the mayor has given us indication and jason just gave us indication that the mayor is supportive in

looking at various factors in determining the impact of the increase in the minimum wage law. i also want to thank the commission and especially executive director we have been working with them and we appreciate you putting together the list of factors to be considered. there is one that i think needs to be looked at and i think in an e-mail that the executive director sent out to all of you, she said to look at the impact of wages at 115 percent of minimum wage and with the increase and i would strongly recommend that number be increased. that was a number i believe it was developed by ken jacobs with all do respect to mr. jacobs. that's a

number that is certainly suspect expect. if you look at the brookings institution, they are not a conservative think tank if you will. i would hope you look at numbers over 115 percent. some number higher than 115. thank you. >> great. thank you. next? >> welcome. >> thank you. steven cornell with small businesses network. we talked about the $15 an hour. i think you should keep in mind it's not $15 an hour. in san francisco there is requirement of sick leave, health care, benefits and what was payroll tax going into gross receipts tax. when we have to pay employees, it's going to end up being more in

the $17-18 an hour required thing. that's how we should be looking at it. looking at how much oakland has to pay, san mateo and marin county. a lot of businesses have to compete on that. wages factor in a lot of businesses. it's something to look at. batting around $15 we should say what it really is. a much higher wage. thank you. >> great. thank you. any other members of the public? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? do we have any other comments or questions? commissioner dwight? >> just one comment, i do want to, having been very involved in this process myself, i want to thank the mayor and you jason and the other members of your team who worked very hard on this over the last several months. this is a tough issue and i think that for all the

discussion that's on going and will continue, i think it should be recognized that the mayor's office worked very hard to get a better solution than was on the table. so with the sciu proposal. the fact that we reached a negotiated proposal, a single proposal on the ballot and one favor able to the one that had been proposed is a victory if even a small victory for small business. so i appreciate everything that you have done, jason. >> any other commissioner comments? motions, suggestions? >> this is a tough one to make a motion on frankly. >> we don't to have do anything. >> i think we should stay neutral on this one. >> okay. >> yup.

>> with no recommendation? >> no recommendation. yeah. do we need to vote on that? >> i do need to, you do need to tell me specifically if the commission chose not to take action or to move forward with no recommendation. i need something. >> the commission is not taking any action on this item. >> i agree with that. >> you do need to take, since it is agenda ized discussion on the possible action, you need to vote that the commission is taking no action. >> do we have a vote that we are taking no action. >> i move that we are not taking action. >> roll call? >> commissioner adams, dooley, white, absent commissioner reilly, commissioner sarkissian, and commissioner

white? aye. >> and so that is 6-0 to take no action. >> great. thank you. thank you, jason. thank you again for your leadership on this. this wasn't easy especially dealing when with what you had to deal with. i have a lot of admiration for you and what you did and how you handled this. i want to personally thank you for it. next item, please. >> we are now on item no. 5, discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors file 140643 administrative code energy efficiency coordinating committee. this is an ordinance amending the administrative code to rename the energy efficiency

steering committee as the energy efficiency coordinating committee to authorize the committee for 1 year unless further extended by the board of supervisors to change the qualifications for membership on the committee and to revise the committee's powers and duties. we have peter from supervisor mar's office to provide a presentation. >> good evening, commissioners. i appreciate it. hopefully a little bit of an easier item that you have been dealing with months and mosses -- months of minimum wage. i have a copy provided to you. this is straight forward. this is bringing back a task force that was established when supervisor mar took office. the goal was stimulate funds for the federal office into communities that needed those

resources the most. the stimulus is obviously well expired at this point, but we were approached by an anybody -- number of environmental activist regarding energy efficiency. this wha this legislation now aims to do is we have private sector programs such as pg & e and local and utilities commission, programs on energy efficiencies. there is all sorts of programs out there and they are not accessible to homeowners who should be taking advantage of this great program that will help you get a new loan for all these types of programs. we wanted to pull together smart people to advise the city on how to communicate and how to simplify the process to getting those programs and

make it that much more accessible. it's a seat from the small business commission. we would like to ask for your recommendation who should be sitting on this maybe someone in food retail and someone that would know the kinds of problems and issues they face. i used to work at the food store and the gentlemen has the same issues. these programs are so scattered. so that's a very quick introduction. i will leave it to questions to save on time this evening. >> do we have any questions? commissioner sarkissian? >> hi. i just want to ask you about the sunset provision. what was the logic behind having this sunset provision. unless the board of supervisors extends the term, then the last day of the month which the inaugural meeting of

the committee is held, this committee is dissolved? >> yes. commissioner. this you for that. the idea is there is a specific project at hand. we want to get this information simplify it and communicate it. the belief is rather than having this indefinite committee do it 12 months so they do they work efficiently and then we can go back to the board of supervisors to ask for it. the idea was to get the target date and get the work done so it doesn't go so long. >> initial efficiency savings wouldn't this committee be helpful in being a permitting committee? >> i think there is tremendous value in that. maybe that would be after the committee makes it's recommendations in how we can better communicate this and align the programs. maybe we reauthorize it with a slightly different purpose with an on going role. we

wanted to narrowly focus this and community it and hopefully it will take about a year and if it makes sense to extend it, it's something we would absolutely be supportive of. >> commissioner dwight? >> i like the idea of efforts like this to be self extinguishing if they don't justify our merit to being reup in whatever time period because these things become institutionalized. i support the sunset provision. >> commissioner reilly? >> yes, we've heard this at the legislation committee. and i think it makes a lot of sense. >> thank you. >> okay. do we have any other questions before we take public comment? >> no. >> okay. let's do public comment. do we have any members of the public who would like to make a comment on item no. 5? seeing none,

public comment is closed. commissioners, do we have any recommendations? commissioner white? >> yes. i want to make a quick comment on the appoint easy for this committee was it agreed that we would have someone from the small business commission? >> the way it is described, >> it's on page 5. >> yes. okay. so to simplify the process was to advise the director to put it forward. obviously we would hope that would include the commissioners expertise and recommend someone. >> commissioners, we can

decide internally and we can put it forward to you to make a recommendation. that's an internal procedural matter. >> okay. i move to support this. >> second. >> roll call. >> commissioner avmd adams, dooley, commissioner dwight, reilly, commissioner sarkissian, commissioner white. aye. >> and that passes unanimously with 6-0. >> great. thank you very much. >> we appreciate it very much. next item, please. >> item no. 6. a pregnancy and discussion on research regarding disability access and readily achievable. commissioners, i want to introduce to you ronald rodriguez who is a usf law student who approached us to

do volunteer work this summer. we took him up on the opportunity and to build on the work that cushion was do ing around disability access and what is readily achievable. he's here to discuss the work he's done. >> you are live on sf governor tv. >> i'm ron rodriguez, a research analyst for small division. today i'm discussing disability access and the in nature of readily achievable and how it's defined. i was tasked with -- i'm sorry. >> they put it up on the slide. >> i was tasked to inquire about what the nature of readily achievable is and the

intent was. we've kind of and more specifically i was trying to determine whether permit fees and other externalities can be entered into this. the question is answered in the affirmative and these types of cost can be considered when making that determination. the discussion today is going to be revolved around my findings and the current situation more specifically the current situation in san francisco and california in general and what that standard is and then i will give our recommendations as far as where we want to go with our next step. so the current environment in san francisco. there are hundreds of lawsuits being filed annually just in the north district alone there were between 250-300 lawsuits filed last year. these lawsuits mostly target small businesses. as i had this

discussion earlier a lot of them are around polk street, a lot of these are very targeted. a lot of these plaintiffs and plaintiffs attorneys they have come, it's been done a number of times. it's assumed that this is almost a business model of some sort and very costly for businesses to be in compliance. and what makes it even more difficult is the permit process that san francisco has here in the city. so, a difficulty that businesses have is they are trying to navigate through this process upon layer that they have to comply both wcda and ada. that being said, i want to move on to title 3 and the actual language of the act. so, there are two standards. one for existing structures and the other for new structures. the most relevant to our case is for

existing structures and the act states that an alteration must be made if it's readily achievable. as you know most of the buildings in san francisco are over 50 years old. the one i reside in is 100. so it's almost a century. it not a public accommodation but it gives you an idea of how old the structures are here. readily achievable. what does that mean? it wasn't the intent to have a very specific hard line definition. but the cfr does provide some hint as to what that means. so as i mentioned it's not precise, but it does state that it should be without difficult and not costly. so factors that they give the court to consider they are such that for instance, the effect on the expenses of resources, nature of the businesses, the

amount that the business em employees and these are all factors of the determination. we are still not sure what that entails and what that means. my job was to dig more into that. the courts haven't explicitly stated what it means as i keep mentioning. i went to the legislative intent. as most attorneys know the legislative intent gives an idea of how it should be construed and applied. looking 32 you the -- through the commentaries, it was noted that the ada was not meant to be a hinder on businesses, it wasn't supposed to hinder growth. some of the quotes i found that were depend rated -- generated in this repeated team, president bush at that time stated it was to provide some sort of flexibility for

the businesses. it wasn't meant to be a do or die kind of a decision. that's kind of the issue that we are facing here locally because of the permit process and the fees that are incurred as a result. so, moving on with that in mind, i kind of looked at how the courts have interpreted this standard here. and as i mentioned they haven't dealt with it directly. there was no holding or outcome that said permit fees, we are going to allow them therefore it is or isn't readily achievable. as such we had to go in and sup set up parameters as to what they have allowed and what they have not allowed. this is an exhaustive list of any sort. this is a paper with did and outline. some of the general ideas are opportunity cost. these are things that should be calculated that should be considered. so

opportunity cost. so when a business has to close for a period of time, there is an opportunity cost there. they are not generating revenue. those aren't being paid. that was a huge consideration. the impact of the alteration on the nature of the business expenses on operations. these are all things that the court found out were really important in making this determination. and then, but as i mentioned beyond this there was no mention of permit fees but we kept digging and although there is explicit language in these opinions, but it's not in the holding. they are just reasoning and talking, but it is important. we did find a number of cases that mention permit fees and the regulatory process. the general idea is that these cost, these types of cost are necessary to making a fair judgment or coming up with a fair value in terms of what's

readily achievable. the court as i put up there proof of contracts that include plan impact statements are determined whether they are achievable or not. that brings to what we can clear as i mentioned that these permit fees and other externalities can be considered in this standard and what our next step what we would like to do is to try to make it, create a more business friendly environment. kind of take way some of the stumbling blocks that have been set up by these different layers of regulations. come up, the task of coming up with somewhat of a definition of what that meant means we can move forward in trying to make a rule to this various specific

local issue of what that means. so that businesses can, there is no ambiguity, no confusion as to whether or not they are compliant. one 1 vision of near future goal that we would like to do is set up guidelines, a conceptual map of what a permit fee would have to, like what that would look like as far as cost estimate so there can be a forecasting of some sort. we just want to make a community that's business friendly and we don't want to hinder growth. that being said, thank you for your time and patients. -- patience. thank you. >> commissioners, any questions? commissioner dooley? >> did you spend any time in the connection between the codes and the city and the federal in terms of historic buildings not being -- to be

altered but yet therefore will not be in compliance with ada? >> so they could be altered and they don't comply? >> well, in san francisco, we have our own codes that do not allow certain buildings because they are historic to be altered, but ours is a much broader definition of that than the federal ada. so that has caused a lot of problems for businesses that are in historic buildings and they can't make any alterations because they would be in violation of the san francisco codes. >> right. with regard to historic preservation, with regard to conflicting laws and it has to do with any sort of safety issue, then generally it's not achievable at all. but in terms of just historic

facade i have seen cases where that has been the case, but it has been deemed like not readily achievable because of the significance of the building. >> and if i may, did you want to finish your thought? >> no. >> to add, commissioner dooley, part of the focus on readily achievable was to really go back to the beginning and see what we could uncover, but also to take the idea of the concept of our permit fees and our process. if it tends to take, what's required to do the access improvements out of readily achieve able, that's the question for the city to take a look at as to whether or not we want to continue to

have a process that will take things out of the readily achievable because of our cost in time >> commissioner white in ? >> i don't know if there is a question for you regina. if there is a building that the not ada and cannot be converted, achievable. are they allowed to still open business to the public even if they are not ada compliant and they can't change that? >> you are always to explore what your readily achievable options are. so, again, kind of what is a redly achievable and what's readily achievable for you doesn't have a specific definition. but that is why if a business is

opening and let's say the entry way is going to be very difficult, there is two or three steps going up, that they really need to consult with a certified access specialist to help figure out what the readily achievable options are. also, if there are things again going back to the process of what either we may require or the cost of doing those improvement may take it out of the readily achievable, then there does need to be some plan of what is immediately doable now and then maybe down the road what it may take if it's structurally is doable. sometimes there are situations where the building department has said it's technically in feasible, but, if it is doable, then what's down