native businesses that have done well and that have hit the 11 mark. so, there are a number of -- i can think of examples of these businesses where they have achieved technically formula retail status but they are not the types of large companies that i think proponents of this legislation have in mind. so, the amendment, i'll offer, i was told i can do this a an oral amendment, for both pieces of legislation, to have it begin at 20 stores -- 20 location worldwide instead of the typical 11 for formula retail. though are the two motion i'd like to continue and the one as i stated. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. first we have a motion on the floor to continue both item to our board meeting next tuesday, november 25th. do i have a second? take the amendments? okay. why don't we take the amendments first.

first we have a motion to amend both items supervisor wiener's comments. second by supervisor tang. discussion on that motion? supervisor mar. >> if we're starting to talk about the motion, the motion to continue, i would urge my colleagues not to support. i know that often more time allows better dialogue, but parts of this legislation was introduced in july. there have been plenty of discussions from meetings with everyone across the table. i know president chiu has been working closely with many different parties a has my office and i know that there's been good discussion with two different budget meetings where we've gone through quite a bit of legislation as well. so, i'd strongly urge my colleagues not to continue this for one more week. i know that there's a number of amendments or another amendment that may be made right now, but my hope is we vote this up or down today and for second reading next week, given the

departure of our president in the short few days in office in san francisco as he moves on to sacramento as well. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. i do have a question for supervisor dado in terms of his piece of this package here. i know that on page 12 starting online 8 where it talks about if there are any potential conflicts with the family, friendly workplace ordinance which you had authored, you know, on the one hand we obviously want to allow for predictability for work schedule for our worksers, on the other hand allow them the flexibility if there are any sort of family issue that come up. ~ so, at the moment the legislation states that this particular ordinance trumps the family funding workplace ordinance. and, so, i wanted to see if we can make an amendment to make it such that the family friendly workplace ordinance,

if there are any conflicts that is. >> president chiu? >> so, this is a topic that the order advocates that we have been working with have discussed quite a bit. i think what we're all trying to achieve is particularly help hourly and low-wage workers. both have some flexibility when it comes to their hours, thats was legislation we moved last year. also, if they're told in a particular week they're going to have certain hours, they knows those are the hours they're going to work and that's not canceled. it what pointed out there could be an inherent tension when it comes to that. and, so, we ought to resolve that tension in one direction. that being said, supervisor mar and i just caucused and we're okay with the suggestion that we flip it in the direction that you're talking about, so, if that's something you want to do. >> thank you very much. i make that motion to make that amendment to page 12, i gets it would be line 11 to say the [speaker not understood] of

code z shall prevail. >> supervisor tang has made a motion. second by president chiu. any discussion on that motion? why don't we move on, supervisor wiener. okay, supervisor breed. >> thank you. i actually have two amendments to the legislation that i'd like to propose, both to meet the requirements of contractors such as security guards and janitors comply with this ordinance. i know this is a major concern of the small business commission, particularly because these contracting companies have not been heavily engaged in this legislative process. it will also be very difficult for the contractors to know when they are and when they are not contracting with a formula retailer as opposed to a regular retailer. this legislation rightly places responsibilities on formula retailers, but transferring those responsibilities by default to their contractors seems unfair and imposes conditions upon them based upon circumstances far beyond their control. this is a very personal issue

for me because these janitorial and security contractors are often some of the only companies that hire from my community and they hire those who have little professional experience or other employment barriers. i don't want to say anything to get in the way of provide any further barriers to that, so, my motion is to delete section 33 00 f.3e from ordinance 14 08 80, and section 33 00 g.4g from ordinance 1410 24. these are on pages 6 lines 4 through 13 and on page 9 lines 13 and 23 is the second piece of legislation ~. so, that's one of the requested amendments i have the second that i have is to -- i think this is definitely

groundbreaking legislation. i'm actually excited for what's to come to support many of these employees who continue to deal with issues with their employer around scheduling and anything this addresses he. this is also a new legislation process involved and my concern about allowing non-city attorney to litigate on this matter when it's not completely -- have been vetted in that sense concerns me. and i think one of the other recommendation for the small business commission has been to remove the private right action and to allow the city to a dr. address thea issue. i do support removing the private right of [speaker not understood] as well. colleagues, i hope you'll

support my suggestions for these two amendments. >> supervisor breed has made two amendments. let's take the first one regarding contractor service. second to that amendment? second by supervisor tang. discussion on that item? >> mr. chair, if i may -- city attorney john give more. just to clarify supervisor breed's amendment, you mentioned a few specific sectionses where the janitorial and security service contractors are covered. there are one or two other sections in theerr ~ in item number 42 where general contractors and employees are mentioned. i understand your amendment is to remove coverage from those employees altogether for both ordinance. >> yes, for contractors specifically. >> got it. >> we have supervisor breed's first amendment on the floor. let's get the second one on the floor, if we can, supervisor breed. right of action, do we have a

second to that? second by supervisor tang. okay. further discussion on these amendments? supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say that i'm adamantly opposed to eliminating janitorial and security workers from our broad retail workers bill of rights. they do extremely hard work, -- again, it's only for janitorial service contractors when they're covered to provide services to formula retail business he. it's not the broad range of them, but it's when they're providing services to a mall and formula retail business he. also when the service is considered integral fought retail business. so, they are part of the retail businesses he in my view and those in my opinion, this is a

foundation [speaker not understood]. it would severely weaken the retail workers bill of rights. i urge opposition to that amendment. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i also am opposed to that first amendment regarding janitorial and security workers. i used to work at a union and organizing with janitors and security officers as well and we would actually go to sites that were nonunion in buildings that were form ha retail buildings or office buildings. ~ formula retail buildings we found the worker there had schedules that were completely unorganized. they didn't know what was going to happen one day to the next ~. often people were not the getting paid the minimum wage but for the area they covered. they would work a certain area, several thousand square feet,

and it wouldn't amount to minimum wage. this legislation does a lot to help provide a real high standard that they can actually make a living on. and i think that we will be seriously watering down this legislation which will affect immigrant workers who are predominantly working in the janitorial sector and a lot of latino and african-american workers who are in the short sector. >> thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor breed? >> i think i want to stress my point. my concern is that many of these industry, a said higher to [speaker not understood], my concern is the unintended consequence he of the legislation and what it might do in this particular situation. so, i think my push is not necessarily to exclude them

permanently, but exclude them at this time before we move this legislation forward so that we can have an opportunity to include them in the conversation. they haven't been involved in the process. they expressed concerns understanding of what they might do a it relates to formula retailers and nonformula retailers. it doesn't mean that i'm suggesting that we permanently eliminate them from the discussion. i think it's there to say, wait, they've clearly not been involve in the pro . it's only fair before we move forward with this at least allow them to provide legislation a they work for their companies so they have a better understanding of it. i would be fine with a continuance to allow for the opportunity for that to happen, which means that between now

and if this legislation is continued to the following week, that would probably be sufficient time to have that discussion in order to make a determination as to whether or not -- can remained or not. i'm happy to withdraw my motion, but if we don't, then i want to keep it active. thank you. >> president chiu. >> thank you, mr. chair and colleagues. thank you for your thoughtfulness on the various amendments to the legislation. let me just address my perspectives on what has been proposed. first of all, with regard to the motion to continue, this legislation has been, as i think many of you know, a long work in progress. the conversation really started last year during the family friendly workplace ordinance discussion. we decided to take out the predictability provisions to

what we would refer this year. my office convened a six-month process between business, labor, and families to work on these issues. legislation was introduced late summer and early fall. we've had a couple of months of discussion. when we had our first meeting in budget we were told that there was still additional questions and we [speaker not understood]. yesterday in order to address these issues, i very much hope we can move this forward and i do hope to be able to vote on this legislation before i leave. that being said, i know there have been four amendments that have been proposed, one by supervisor wiener, one by supervisor tang, two by supervisor breed, and unprepared to support three out of the four. let me just mention the one that i'm not prepared to support is the amendment having to do with janitors and security guards. as supervisors mar and avalos have articulated, those are

employees and [speaker not understood] clearly from them that really have suffered from the challenges around predictability. and i think by including the exemption that we included for businesses that have less than 20 employees, we're not impacting i think the smallest mom and pop businesses supervisor breed is concerned about and there have been issues the last week-and-a-half about whether we were including the smallest businesses or not. the legislation as it stand currently exempts businesses under 20. so, again hopefully those businesses will not be impacted. but i do think it is important for us to recognize that some of our hardest working and lowest wage workers in our city are janitors and our security guards, deserve some predictable. i am more than happy to, if there are any additional conversations to be had, to think harder about this. that is where i am. with regard to supervisor

tang's amendment, we already addressed -- supervisor mar and i agreed we are prepared to support prioritizing flexibility and the family friendly workplace ordinance in this ordinance. with regard to supervisor wiener's suggestion that we increase the threshold to 20 of the number of businesses in town, that is not something i would have been prepared to support in the land use context in the front of the retail legislation that we voted on earlier today that supervisor mar had authored. but i think when it comes to pre-difficultthctionv ability. certainly the san francisco soup kitchen, these are small home grown business he in san francisco. and the idea that we should treat them as we treat other small businesses it, something i could support. and supervisor breed had suggested some consistency around the prime right of

action to do what i know, and the box legislation what supervisor cohen did last year with the family workplace ordinance. i am supportive of supervisor breed's amendments around [speaker not understood]. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. similarly, i will be supportive of the elimination of the private right of action to be consistent with the other legislation that president chiu just mentioned. and also on supervisor wiener's motion, to create the 20-store threshold from 11 to 20. i think consideration for the smaller chain like the s.f. soup company and the [speaker not understood] copies to me make sense. though our coalition that i've worked closely with felt that the definition of 20 employees, that threshold what capturing the franchises. though wiener's amendment would

further creation another exemption, i'm willing to support that in consideration of the small chains that are locally based and independent, but i believe there are a number that would be impacted by this. but i'm doing my best to listen to what my colleagues are presenting and i think that the motion from supervisor tang also to be consistent with the family friendly workplace ordinance so that if there is a conflict that arises, that that would take precedent because president chiu is the main author of that portion of it and i'll defer to his support for my colleague supervisor tang's motion on that one as well. but i strongly oppose continuing and i also oppose eliminating the hard working janitors and custodians within the retail businesses that have been covering under the formula retail worker bill of rights. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i will withdraw my motion for

the removal of contractors for janitorial and security guards for now. thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. this is just a clarifying question, because i wasn't involved as closely as many of my colleagues were on the debate. so, when we talk about raising the threshold of formula retail to 20 within the boundary lines of the city, i guess i have two questions. one, can we do that? because i know we had considered that in our planning code. the conditional use can be a burden in term of time and cost. we want to support our local chain like coffee. it was my understanding we couldn't privilege one category over another where they were

growing. i guess my second question is worker predictability, i guess it's not clear why we would want to provide workers at our native grown formula retail, less predictability than the ones that were started in other parts of this country. i guess i'm just not sure how it's helping our native grown formula retail. those are two separate questions. i understand the ar about with the cu. i know why that is a burden. i'm not sure why this would be? so, my first question is to the city attorney on whether this is something that we can differentiate from this type of legislation. also the authors, why we should [speaker not understood] other such protection we're affording formula retail worker [speaker not understood]. >> city attorney jon givner. i actually didn't under supervisor wiener's pro poed

amendment to single out companies or formula retail establishments that were initially based in the city like phil's. i think the amendment would increase the threshold to 20 stores, 20 locations worldwide and the reference to the local stores as i understand it was just explaining why you might want to exempt those types of stores from the ordinance okay. i'm sorry, then, that i misheard. the amendment is to change the definition of l formula wide. >> that's right. >> in the case of conditional use [speaker not understood], i understand why we want to cause less burden to lockheed martin lereah tail business. i guess it's not loner why we would want to p give the same

protections to workers to work for a national or nation nailal ~ national chain in the city of san diego. >> our city attorney? supervisor mar? supervisor wiener. >> so, through the chair to supervisor kim, first of all, just to reiterate, even though by way of example [speaker not understood], the amendment, it doesn't change the definition of formula retail. it just changes what it supply to 20 location worldwide whether you started here or not. in term of the rationale for distinction, part-time worker need help and we're trying to strike the right balance.

and when we talk about these small chains in term of the burden on the business and some of the flexibility that they need, that may not be the same as some of the large of the national and international changes. what my advocates of this legislation talk about, they talk about abuses happening in these smaller businesses, talk about the national and multinational. i think it's trying to strike the right balance. it's a pretty small number of business he, but for those it's pretty impactful. >> so, if i may follow through the chair, it would be helpful to kind of get another understanding of the list of businesses that would be added in. without a lot of other arguments, it's not clear why i would want to protect a worker

at a phil's coffee. why wouldn't we want to afford them to get to 35 hours first before they hire another worker. just because you work at phil's and not target and a single mom doesn't mean you're not trying to support your family. formula retail compared to a longer one, i haven't felt that has been a burden to those businesses, to afford their workers as many full-time job along with a predictable. i can understand the argument how conditional use is a burden. but in this casey just don't see why this is a burden ~. i think all of our businesses should want to do this in that we are protecting our workers, i wouldn't want a case moving

into the future. i love the small formula retail chains. but i wouldn't want a bad actor in the future that was abusing their workers and had a loop hold to affording the same protections to their workers. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. through the chair, the argument that supervisor kim is making about part-time workers and small chains versus large chains, you can make that same logic would apply to extending this legislation to every business including small businesses because a part-time worker is a part-time worker is, everyone has the same challenges and concernsv. the author of the legislation limited these new rights to formula retail i believe precisely taking into account

the sort of unique needs of some of our smaller business he and that there are differing burdens. and we see it also whether it's the health care security ordinance or various worker protection ordinance that we've adopted in san francisco. we have different thresholds. there's always been a recognition that smaller businesses face very different challenges than larger businesses do. and, so, the small businesses are already not part of this legislation and it's really just about where you draw the line. and in my view these smaller formula retail outlets and the planning department actually did compile a list of them in the context of the previous legislation updating and reforming formula retail ordinance. and they are smaller businesses. these are not meganational

chains, international chains. and, so, i think this is an amendment that makes a lot of sense. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, chair farrell. to supervisor kim's question, many small businesses already provide a high road type employment for their workers many of the smaller chains that we're talking about, we've had good meetings with them and know this, but i think you're right, everyone deserves the rights that are provided by the retail workers bill of rights. president chiu and i are operating win very complex set of we see this piece of legislation will spread around the country. i want to say we pass the our formula retail [speaker not understood], we stuck strong at 11 and the coalition we worked with of small businesses also ensured that we kept that as

our definition, but we still were sensitive to the smaller chains and strategic economic which is the fund that did the study looking at the 1250 firm lereah tail businesses in the city, the number of chains 11 to 20. there are few of them. many of them are locally or regional chains. i think it's a really good question, in term of passing legislation, hopefully today it's one of these issues that supervisor wiener described as a consideration for these smaller chains. i hope that all the business he within the city will eventually adopt these start a first step as we pass this piece of legislation. >> colleagues, any further discussion on the amendments on the floor? okay, seeing none, typically a motion to continue takes precedence. but since supervisor wiener

offered the motion to continue and his amendments at the same time we will take all the moments to amend first and we'll take them in order. so, first, madam clerk we have supervisor wiener's motion to amend to include 20 locations. with items 41 and 42 roll call vote? >> that was seconded by supervisor tang. okay. supervisor kim? >> no. >> kim no. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. wiener aye? yee no. supervisor avalos? avalos no. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. ~ ~ supervisor co-en? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 7 ayes and 3 no'ses. >> motion to amend passes. can we go to our second amendment offered by supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang, seconded by

supervisor chiu. supervisor kim. kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee? yee aye. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu. chiu cohen. cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. there are 10 ayes. >> supervisor tang's motion to item number 42 passes. madam clerk, can we please go to breed's motion to amend private right of action. >> supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener aye. supervisor yee. yee aye. supervisor avalos. avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor chiu? chiu yoo.

supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor farrell? farrell aye. 10 ayes. >> motion by supervisor breed pass he. madam clerk, can we move to supervisor wiener's motion to move this to next board meeting november 25th. >> on the motion to continue, mr. chair, we need a second. i'm sorry -- >> i believe we had a second by supervisor tang. >> i have a quick question and point of order. >> supervisor cohen. >> you said this is a continuance request for one week? on item 41 and 42? >> through the chair, yes. >> president chiu? as i said before, i'm not going to support this motion to continue because of the long process we've gone from both a community perspective, a stakeholder perspective as well as in committee and